Martyr,ArchbishopofCanterbury, born atLondon, 21 December, 1118 (?);
died atCanterbury, 29 December, 1170.St. Thomaswas born ofparentswho, coming fromNormandy, had settled inEnglandsome years previously. No reliance can be placed upon thelegendthat his mother was aSaracen. In afterlifehishumblebirth was made the
subject of spitefulcomment, though hisparentswere not peasants, but people of some mark, and from his earliest years
their son had been well taught and had associated with gentlefolk. He learned
to read atMertonAbbeyand then studied inParis. On leavingschoolhe employed himself insecretarialwork, first with Sir Richer de l'Aigle and then with hiskinsman, Osbert Huitdeniers, who was "Justiciar" ofLondon.Somewhereabout the year 1141, under circumstances that are variously related, he
entered the service ofTheobald,ArchbishopofCanterbury, and in that household
he won hismaster'sfavour and eventually became the most trusted of all hisclerks. A description embodied in theIcelandicSagaand derived probably from Robert of
Cricklade gives a vivid portrait of him at this period.

To look upon he
wasslimof growth and pale of hue, with
dark hair, a long nose, and a straightly featured face. Blithe of countenance
was he, winning andloveablein his conversation, frank of speech in his discourses, but slightly
stuttering in his talk, so keen of discernment and understanding that he could
always make difficult questions plain after a wise manner.

Theobald
recognized his capacity, made use of him in many delicate negotiations, and,
after allowing him to go for a year to study civil andcanon lawatBolognaandAuxerre,ordainedhimdeaconin 1154, after bestowing upon him several preferments, the most
important of which was theArchdeaconryofCanterbury(seeRadford, "Thomas of
London", p. 53).

It
wasjustat this period that KingStephendied and the young monarchHenry IIbecame unquestioned master of thekingdom. He took "Thomas ofLondon", as Becket was
then most commonly called, for his chancellor, and in that officeThomasat the age of thirty-six became,
with the possible exception of the justiciar, the most powerful subject inHenry'swide dominions. The chroniclers speak with wonder of therelationswhichexistedbetween the chancellor and the sovereign, who was twelve years
his junior. People declared that "they had but one heart and onemind". Often the king and hisministerbehaved like two schoolboys at
play. But although theyhuntedor rode at the head of
an army together it was no mere comradeship in pastime which united them. Both
were hard workers, and both, we maybelieve, had the
prosperity of thekingdomdeeply at heart. Whether the chancellor, who was after all the elderman, was thetrueoriginator of the administrativereformswhichHenryintroduced cannot now be
clearly determined. In many matters they saw eye to eye. The king's imperial
views andloveof splendour were quite to the taste of hisminister. WhenThomaswent toFrancein 1158 to negotiate amarriagetreaty, he travelled
with such pomp that the people said: "If this be only the chancellor what
must be thegloryof the king himself?"

In
1153Thomasactedasjusticeitinerant in three counties. In 1159 he seems to have been the chief
organizer ofHenry'sexpedition toToulouse, upon which he
accompanied him, and though it seems to beuntruethat the impost of "scutage" was called intoexistencefor thatOccasion(Round, "Feudal England",
268-73), stillThomasundoubtedly pressed on the
exaction of this money contribution in lieu of military service and enforced it
againstecclesiasticsin such a way that bitter complaints were made of the disproportionately
heavy burden this imposed upon theChurch. In the military
operationsThomastook a leading part, andGarnier, aFrenchchronicler, who lived to write of
thevirtuesofSt. Thomasand hismartyrdom, declares that in these
encounters he saw himunhorsemanyFrenchknights.Deaconthough he was, he lead the most daring attacks in person, andEdwardGrimalso gives us to understand that in
laying waste the enemy's country with fire and sword the chancellor's
principles did not materially differ from those of the other commanders of his
time. But although, asmenthen reported, "he put off thearchdeacon", in this and other ways, he was very far from assuming
the licentious manners of those around him. No word was ever breathed against
his personal purity. Foul conduct or foul speech,lyingorunchastitywerehatefulto him, and on occasion he punished them severely. He seems at all times
to have had clear principles with regard to the claims of theChurch, and even during this
period of his chancellorship he more than once riskedHenry'sgrievous displeasure. For example, he opposed thedispensationwhichHenryfor political reasons extorted from thepope, and strove to prevent
themarriageofMary,AbbessofRomsey, toMatthewofBoulogne. But to the very limits of
what hisconsciencepermitted,Thomasidentified himself with hismaster'sinterests, and Tennyson istruetohistorywhen he makes thearchbishopsay:

I served ourTheobaldwell when I was with him:
I servedKing Henrywell as Chancellor:
I am his no more, and I must serve theChurch.

Archbishop
Theobalddied in 1161, and in the course of
the next yearHenryseems to have decided that it would begoodpolicy to prepare the way for
further schemes of reform by securing the advancement of his chancellor to theprimacy. Ourauthoritiesare agreed that from the firstThomasdrew back in alarm. "Iknowyour plans for theChurch," he said,
"youwillassert claims which I, if I werearchbishop, must needs
oppose." ButHenrywould not be gainsaid, andThomasat the instance ofCardinalHenryofPisa, who urged it upon him
as a service toreligion, yielded in spite of his misgivings. He wasordainedpriestonSaturdayinWhitweekandconsecratedbishopthe next day,Sunday, 3 June, 1162. It seems to
have beenSt. Thomaswho obtained forEnglandtheprivilegeof keeping thefeastof theBlessed Trinityon thatSunday, the anniversary of hisconsecration, and more than a
century afterwards thiscustomwasadoptedby thepapalCourt, itself and eventually imposed on the whole world.

A
great change took place in thesaint'sway oflifeafter hisconsecrationasarchbishop. Even as chancellor he
had practised secretausterities, but now in view of the
struggle he clearly saw before him he gave himself to fastings anddisciplines,hair shirts, protractedvigils, and constantprayers. Before the end of the
year 1162 he stripped himself of allsignsof the lavish display which he had previously affected. On 10 Aug. he
went barefoot to receive the envoy who brought him thepalliumfromRome. Contrary to the king's
wish he resigned the chancellorship. WhereuponHenryseems to have required him to surrendercertainecclesiasticalpreferments which he still retained, notably thearchdeaconry, and when this was not done at once showed bitter
displeasure. Other misunderstandings soon followed. Thearchbishop, having, as hebelieved, the king's express permission, set about to reclaim alienated
estates belonging to hissee, a procedure which
again gaveoffence. Still more serious was the
open resistance which he made to the king's proposal that avoluntaryofferingto the sheriffs should be paid into
the royal treasury. As the first recorded instance of any determined opposition
to the king's arbitrarywillin a matter of taxation, the incident is of much constitutional
importance. Thesaint'sprotest seems to have been successful, but therelationswith the king only grew more
strained.

Soon
after this the greatmatterof dispute was reached in the resistance made byThomasto the king's officials when they
attempted to assertjurisdictionover criminousclerks. The question has been dealt
with in some detail in the articleENGLAND. That thesainthimself had no wish to be lenient with criminousclerkshas been well shown byNorgate(AngevinKings, ii, 22). It was with him simply a question of principle.St. Thomasseems all along to have suspectedHenryof a design to strike at the independence of what the king regarded as a
too powerfulChurch. With this viewHenrysummoned thebishopsatWestminster(1 October, 1163) tosanctioncertainas yet unspecified articles which he called his grandfather's customs (avitæ
consuetudines), one of theknownobjects of which was to
bringclericsguilty of crimes under thejurisdictionof thesecularcourts. The otherbishops, as the demand was
still in the vague, showed a willingness to submit, though with thecondition"saving our order", upon
whichSt. Thomasinflexibly insisted. The king's resentment was thereupon manifested by
requiring thearchbishopto surrendercertaincastles he had hitherto retained, and by otheractsof unfriendliness. In deference to
what hebelievedto be thepope'swish, thearchbishopin Decemberconsentedto make some concessions by giving a personal and private undertaking to
the king toobeyhis customs "loyally and ingood faith". But whenHenryshortly afterwards at Clarendon (13 January, 1164) sought to draw thesainton to a formal and
publicacceptanceof the "Constitutions of Clarendon", under which name the
sixteen articles, theavitæ consuetudinesas finally drafted, have been commonly known,St. Thomas, though at first yielding somewhat to the solicitations of
the otherbishops, in the end took up an
attitude of uncompromising resistance.

Then
followed a period of unworthy and vindictivepersecution. When opposing a claim
made against him byJohnthe Marshal,Thomasupon a frivolous pretext was found
guilty ofcontemptof court. For this he wassentencedto pay £500; other demands for large sums of money followed, and
finally, though a complete release of all claims against him as chancellor had
been given on his becomingarchbishop, he was required to
render an account of nearly all the moneys which had passed through his hands
in his discharge of the office. Eventually a sum of nearly £30,000 was demanded
of him. His fellowbishopssummoned byHenryto acouncilatNorthampton, implored him to throw
himself unreservedly upon the king's mercy, butSt. Thomas, instead of yielding,solemnlywarned them and threatened them. Then, after celebratingMass, he took hisarchiepiscopalcrossinto his own hand and presented
himself thus in the royalcouncilchamber. The king demanded thatsentenceshould be passed upon him, but in the confusion and discussion which
ensued thesaintwith upliftedcrossmade his way through the mob ofangrycourtiers. He fled away secretly that night (13 October, 1164), sailed
in disguise fromSandwich(2 November), and after
being cordially welcomed byLouisVII ofFrance, he threw himself at
the feet ofPope Alexander III, then atSens, on 23 Nov. Thepope, who had given a cold
reception tocertainepiscopalenvoys sent byHenry, welcomed thesaintvery kindly, and refused to accept his resignation of hissee. On 30 November,Thomaswent to take up his residence at
theCistercianAbbey of PontignyinBurgundy, though he was
compelled to leave this refuge a year later, asHenry, after confiscating thearchbishop'spropertyand banishing all the Becketkinsfolk, threatened to
wreak his vengeance on the wholeCistercian Orderif they continued to harbour him.

The
negotiations betweenHenry, thepope, and thearchbishopdragged on for the next four years without the position being sensibly
changed. Although thesaintremained firm in his resistance to the principle of the Constitutions of
Clarendon, he was willing to make any concessions that could be reasonably
asked of him, and on 6 January, 1169, when the kings ofEnglandandFrancewere in conference at Montmirail, he threw himself atHenry'sfeet, but as he still refused to accept the obnoxious customsHenryrepulsed him. At last in 1170 some sort of reconciliation was patched
up. The question of the customs was not mentioned andHenryprofessed himself willing to be guided by thearchbishop'scouncilas to amends due to theSee of Canterburyfor the recent violation of itsrightsin thecrowningofHenry'sson by theArchbishopofYork. On 1 December, 1170,St. Thomasagain landed in England, and was
received with every demonstration of popular enthusiasm. But trouble almost
immediately occurred in connection with theabsolution of two of thebishops, whosesentence ofexcommunication St. Thomas had brought with him, as well as
over the restoration by the de Brocfamilyof thearchbishop'scastle atSaltwood. How farHenrywas directly responsible for the tragedy which soon after occurred on 29
December is not quite clear. Fourknightswho came fromFrancedemanded theabsolutionof thebishops.St. Thomaswould not comply. They left for aspace, but came back atVespertimewith a band of armedmen. To theirangryquestion, "Where is thetraitor?" thesaintboldly replied, "Here I am, notraitor, butarchbishopandpriestofGod." They tried to
drag him from thechurch, but were unable, and in the
end they slew him where he stood, scattering his brains on the pavement. Hisfaithfulcompanion,EdwardGrim, who bore hiscross, was wounded in the struggle.

A
tremendous reaction of feeling followed thisdeedof blood. In an extraordinary brief
space oftimedevotionto themartyredarchbishophad spread all throughEurope. Thepopepromulgatedthebullofcanonization, little more than two
years after themartyrdom, 21 February, 1173. On
12 July, 1174,Henry IIdid publicpenance, and was scourged at thearchbishop'stomb. An immense number ofmiracleswere worked, and for the rest of theMiddle Agesthe shrine ofSt. Thomas of Canterbury was one of
thewealthiestand most famous inEurope. Themartyr'sholyremains are believed to have been
destroyed in September, 1538, when nearly all the othershrinesinEnglandwere dismantled; but thematteris by no means clear, and, although the weight of learned opinion is
adverse, there are still those whobelievethat a skeleton found in thecryptin January, 1888, is the body ofSt. Thomas. The story thatHenry VIIIin 1538 summoned thearchbishopto stand his trial forhigh treason, and that
when, in June, 1538, the trial had been held and the accused pronouncedcontumacious, the body was ordered to be disinterred and burnt, is
probablyapocryphal.

Sources

By far the best English life is MORRIS, The Life of St. Thomas Becket (2nd ed., London, 1885); there is a somewhat fuller work of L'HUILLIER, Saint Thomas de Cantorbery (2 vols., Paris, 1891); the volume by DEMIMUID, St. Thomas Becket (Paris, 1909), in the series Les Saints is not abreast of modern research. There are several excellent lives by Anglicans, of which HUTTON, Thomas Becket (London, 1900), and the account by NORGATE in Dict. Nat. Biog., s.v. Thomas, known as Thomas a Becket, are probably the best. The biography by ROBERTSON, Becket, Archbishop of Canterbury (London, 1859), is not sympathetic. Nearly all the sources of the Life, as well as the books of miracles worked at the shrine, have been edited in the Rolls Series by ROBERTSON under the title Materials for the History of Thomas Becket (7 vols., London, 1875-1883). The valuable Norse saga is edited in the same series by MAGNUSSON, Thomas Saga Erkibyskups (2 vols., London, 1884). The chronicle of GARNIER DE PONT S. MAXENCE, Vie de St. Thomas Martyr, has been edited by HIPPEAU (Paris, 1859). The miracles have been specially studied from an agnostic standpoint by ABBOT, Thomas of Canterbury, his death and miracles (2 vols., London, 1898). Some valuable material has been collected by RADFORD, Thomas of London before his Consecration (Cambridge, 1894). On the relics see MORRIS, Relics of St. Thomas (London, 1888); THORNTON, Becket's Bones (Canterbury, 1900); WARD, The Canterbury Pilgrimages (London, 1904); WARNER in Eng. Hist. Rev., VI (1891), 754-56.

[The following is from the book PICTORIAL LIVE OF THE SAINTS, COPILED FROM "BUTLER'S LIVES" AND OTHER APPROVED SOURCES., BENZIGER BROTHERS, PRINTERS TO THE HOLY APOSTOLIC SEE.

THOMAS, son of Gilbert Becket, was born in Southwark, England, A.D. 1117. When a youth he was attached to the household of Theobald, Archbishop of Canterbury, who sent him to Paris and Bologna to study law. He became Archdeacon of Canterbury, then Lord High Chancellor of England; and in 1160, when Archbishop Theobald died, the king insisted on the consecration of St Thomas in his stead. St. Thomas refused, warning the king that from that hour their friendship would be broken. In the end he yielded, and was consecrated. The conflict at once broke out; St. Thomas resisted the royal customs, which violated the liberties of the Church and the laws of the realm. After six years of contention, partly spent in exile, St. Thomas, with full foresight of martydom before him, returned as a good shepherd to his Church. On the 29th of December, 1170, just as vespers were beginning, four knights broke into the cathedral, crying: "Where is the archbishop? where is the traitor?" The monks fled, and St. Thomas might easily have escaped. But he advanced, saying : "Here I am—no traitor, but archbishop. What seek you ?" "Your life," they cried. "Gladly do I give it," was the reply; and bowing his head, the invincible martyr was hacked and hewn till his soul went to God. Six months later Henry II. submitted to be publicly scourged at the Saint's shrine, and restored to the Church her full rights.

REFLECTION.-"Learn from St. Thomas," says Father Faber, "to fight the good fight even to the shedding of blood, or, to what men find harder, the shedding of their good name by pouring it out to waste on the earth."

INTERCESSORY PRAYER: Today, ask Saint Thomas to help us be courageous witnesses of the Catholic faith.

There is a romantic legend that the mother of Thomas Becket was a Saracen princess who followed his father, a pilgrim or crusader, back from the Holy Land, and wandered about Europe repeating the only English words she knew, "London" and "Becket," until she found him. There is no foundation for the story. According to a contemporary writer, Thomas Becket was the son of Gilbert Becket, sheriff of London; another relates that both parents were of Norman blood. Whatever his parentage, we know with certainty that the future chancellor and archbishop of Canterbury was born on St. Thomas day, 1118, of a good family, and that he was educated at a school of canons regular at Merton Priory in Sussex, and later at the University of Paris. When Thomas returned from France, his parents had died. Obliged to make his way unaided, he obtained an appointment as clerk to the sheriff's court, where he showed great ability. All accounts describe him as a strongly built, spirited youth, a lover of field sports, who seems to have spent his leisure time in hawking and hunting. One day when he was out hunting with his falcon, the bird swooped down at a duck, and as the duck dived, plunged after it into the river. Thomas himself leapt in to save the valuable hawk, and the rapid stream swept him along to a mill, where only the accidental stopping of the wheel saved his life. The episode serves to illustrate the impetuous daring which characterized Becket all through his life.

At the age of twenty-four Thomas was given a post in the household of Theobald, archbishop of Canterbury, and while there he apparently resolved on a career in the Church, for he took minor orders. To prepare himself further, he obtained the archbishop's permission to study canon law at the University of Bologna, continuing his studies at Auxerre, France. On coming back to England, he became provost of Beverley, and canon at Lincoln and St. Paul's cathedrals. His ordination as deacon occurred in 1154. Theobald appointed him archdeacon of Canterbury, the highest ecclesiastical office in England after a bishopric or an abbacy, and began to entrust him with the most intricate affairs; several times he was sent on important missions to Rome. It was Thomas' diplomacy that dissuaded Pope Eugenius III from sanctioning the coronation of Eustace, eldest son of Stephen, and when Henry of Anjou, great grandson of William the Conqueror, asserted his claim to the English crown and became King Henry II, it was not long before he appointed this gifted churchman as chancellor, that is, chief minister. An old chronicle describes Thomas as "slim of growth, and pale of hue, with dark hair, a long nose, and a straightly featured face.

Blithe of countenance was he, winning and lovable in conversation, frank of speech in his discourses but slightly stuttering in his talk, so keen of discernment that he could always make difficult questions plain after a wise manner." Thomas discharged his duties as chancellor conscientiously and well.

Like the later chancellor of the realm, Thomas Moore, who also became a martyr and a saint, Thomas Becket was the close personal friend as well as the loyal servant of his young sovereign. They were said to have one heart and one mind between them, and it seems possible that to Becket's influence were due, in part, those reforms for which Henry is justly praised, that is, his measures to secure equitable dealing for all his subjects by a more uniform and efficient system of law. But it was not only their common interest in matters of state that bound them together. They were also boon companions and spent merry hours together. It was almost the only relaxation Thomas allowed himself, for he was an ambitious man. He had a taste for magnificence, and his household was as fine—if not finer—than the King's. When he was sent to France to negotiate a royal marriage, he took a personal retinue of two hundred men, with a train of several hundred more, knights and squires, clerics and servants, eight fine wagons, music and singers, hawks and hounds, monkeys and mastiffs. Little wonder that the French gaped in wonder and asked, "If this is the chancellor's state, what can the Ring's be like?" His entertainments, his gifts, and his liberality to the poor were also on a very lavish scale.

In 1159 King Henry raised an army of mercenaries in France to regain the province of Toulouse, a part of the inheritance of his wife, the famous Eleanor of Aquitaine.

Thomas served Henry in this war with a company of seven hundred knights of his own. Wearing armor like any other fighting man, he led assaults and engaged in single combat. Another churchman, meeting him, exclaimed: "What do you mean by wearing such a dress? You look more like a falconer than a cleric. Yet you are a cleric in person, and many times over in office-archdeacon of Canterbury, dean of Hastings, provost of Beverley, canon of this church and that, procurator of the archbishop, and like to be archbishop, too, the rumor goes!" Thomas received the rebuke with good humor.

Although he was proud, strong-willed, and irascible, and remained so all his life, he did not neglect to make seasonal retreats at Merton and took the discipline imposed on him there. His confessor during this time testified later to the blamelessness of his private life, under conditions of extreme temptation. If he sometimes went too far in those schemes of the King which tended to infringe on the ancient prerogatives and rights of the Church, at other times he opposed Henry with vigor.

In 1161 Archbishop Theobald died. King Henry was then in Normandy with Thomas, whom he resolved to make the next primate of England. When Henry announced his intention, Thomas, demurring, told him: "Should God permit me to be the archbishop of Canterbury, I would soon lose your Majesty's favor, and the affection with which you honor me would be changed into hatred. For there are several things you do now in prejudice of the rights of the Church which make me fear you would require of me what I could not agree to; and envious persons would not fail to make it the occasion of endless strife between us." The King paid no heed to this remonstrance, and sent bishops and noblemen to the monks of Canterbury, ordering them to labor with the same zeal to set his chancellor in the see as they would to set the crown on the young prince's head. Thomas continued to refuse the promotion until the legate of the Holy See, Cardinal Henry of Pisa, overrode his scruples. The election took place in May, 1162. Young Prince Henry, then in London, gave the necessary consent in his father's name. Thomas, now forty-four years old, rode to Canterbury and was first ordained priest by Walter, bishop of Rochester, and then on the octave of Pentecost was consecrated archbishop by the bishop of Winchester. Shortly afterwards he received the pallium sent by Pope Alexander III.

From this day worldly grandeur no longer marked Thomas' way of life. Next his skin he wore a hairshirt, and his customary dress was a plain black cassock, a linen surplice, and a sacerdotal stole about his neck. He lived ascetically, spent much time in the distribution of alms, in reading and discussing the Scriptures with Herbert of Bosham, in visiting the infirmary, and supervising the monks at their work. He took special care in selecting candidates for Holy Orders. As ecclesiastical judge, he was rigorously just.

Although as archbishop Thomas had resigned the chancellorship, against the King's wish, the relations between the two men seemed to be unchanged for a time. But a host of troubles was brewing, and the crux of all of them was the relationship between Church and state. In the past the landowners, among which the Church was one of the largest, for each hide [1] of land they held, had paid annually two shillings to the King's officers, who in return undertook to protect them from the rapacity of minor tax- gatherers. This was actually a flagrant form of graft and the Ring now ordered the money paid into his own exchequer. The archbishop protested, and there were hot words between him and the Ring. Thenceforth the King's demands were directed solely against the clergy, with no mention of other landholders who were equally involved.

Then came the affair of Philip de Brois, a canon accused of murdering a soldier.

According to a long-established law, as a cleric he was tried in an ecclesiastical court, where he was acquitted by the judge, the bishop of Lincoln, but ordered to pay a fine to the deceased man's relations. A king's justice then made an effort to bring him before his civil court, but he could not be tried again upon that indictment and told the king's justice so in insulting terms. Thereat Henry ordered him tried again both for the original murder charge—and for his later misdemeanor. Thomas now pressed to have the case referred to his own archiepiscopal court; the King reluctantly agreed, and appointed both lay and clerical assessors. Philip's plea of a previous acquittal was accepted as far as the murder was concerned, but he was punished for his contempt of a royal court. The King thought the sentence too mild and remained dissatisfied. In October, 1163, the King called the bishops of his realm to a council at Westminster, at which he demanded their assent to an edict that thenceforth clergy proved guilty of crimes against the civil law should be handed over to the civil courts for punishment.

Thomas stiffened the bishops against yielding. But finally, at the council of Westminster they assented reluctantly to the instrument known as the Constitutions of Clarendon, which embodied the royal "customs" in Church matters, and including some additional points, making sixteen in all. It was a revolutionary document: it provided that no prelate should leave the kingdom without royal permission, which would serve to prevent appeals to the Pope; that no tenant-in-chief should be excommunicated against the Ring's will; that the royal court was to decide in which court clerics accused of civil offenses should be tried; that the custody of vacant Church benefices and their revenues should go to the King. Other provisions were equally damaging to the authority and prestige of the Church. The bishops gave their assent only with a reservation, "saving their order," which was tantamount to a refusal.

Thomas was now full of remorse for having weakened, thus setting a bad example to the bishops, but at the same time he did not wish to widen the breach between himself and the King. He made a futile effort to cross the Channel and put the case before the Pope. On his part, the Ring was bent on vengeance for what he considered the disloyalty and ingratitude of the archbishop. He ordered Thomas to give up certain castles and honors which he held from him, and began a campaign to persecute and discredit him. Various charges of chicanery and financial dishonesty were brought against Thomas, dating from the time he was chancellor. The bishop of Winchester pleaded the archbishop's discharge. The plea was disallowed; Thomas offered a voluntary payment of his own money, and that was refused.

The affair was building up to a crisis, when, on October 13, 1164, the King called another great council at Northampton. Thomas went, after celebrating Mass, carrying his archbishop's cross in his hand. The Earl of Leicester came out with a message from the King: "The King commands you to render your accounts. Otherwise you must hear his judgment." "Judgment?" exclaimed Thomas. "I was given the church of Canterbury free from temporal obligations. I am therefore not liable and will not plead with regard to them. Neither law nor reason allows children to judge and condemn their fathers.

Wherefore I refuse the King's judgment and yours and everyone's. Under God, I will be judged by the Pope alone."

Determined to stand out against the Ring, Thomas left Northampton that night, and soon thereafter embarked secretly for Flanders. Louis VII, Ring of France, invited Thomas into his dominions. Meanwhile King Henry forbade anyone to give him aid.

Gilbert, abbot of Sempringham, was accused of having sent him some relief. Although the abbot had done nothing, he refused to swear he had not, because, he said, it would have been a good deed and he would say nothing that might seem to brand it as a criminal act. Henry quickly dispatched several bishops and others to put his case before Pope Alexander, who was then at Sens. Thomas also presented himself to the Pope and showed him the Constitutions of Clarendon, some of which Alexander pronounced intolerable, others impossible. He rebuked Thomas for ever having considered accepting them. The next day Thomas confessed that he had, though unwillingly, received the see of Canterbury by an election somewhat irregular and uncanonical, and had acquitted himself badly in it. He resigned his office, returned the episcopal ring to the Pope, and withdrew. After deliberation, the Pope called him back and reinstated him, with orders not to abandon his office, for to do so would be to abandon the cause of God. He then recommended Thomas to the Cistercian abbot at Pontigny.

Thomas then put on a monk's habit, and submitted himself to the strict rule of the monastery. Over in England King Henry was busy confiscating the goods of all the friends, relations, and servants of the archbishop, and banishing them, first binding them by oath to go to Thomas at Pontigny, that the sight of their distress might move him. Troops of these exiles soon appeared at the abbey. Then Henry notified the Cistercians that if they continued to harbor his enemy he would sequestrate all their houses in his dominions. After this, the abbot hinted that Thomas was no longer welcome in his abbey. The archbishop found refuge as the guest of King Louis at the royal abbey of St. Columba, near Sens.

This historic quarrel dragged on for three years. Thomas was named by the Pope as his legate for all England except York, whereupon Thomas excommunicated several of his adversaries; yet at times he showed himself conciliatory towards the King. The French king was also drawn into the struggle, and the two kings had a conference in 1169 at Montmirail. King Louis was inclined to take Thomas' side. A reconciliation was finally effected between Thomas and Henry, although the lines of power were not too clearly drawn. The archbishop now made preparations to return to his see. With a premonition of his fate, he remarked to the bishop of Paris in parting, "I am going to England to die." On December 1, 1172, he disembarked at Sandwich, and on the journey to Canterbury the way was lined with cheering people, welcoming him home. As he rode into the cathedral city at the head of a triumphal procession, every bell was ringing. Yet in spite of the public demonstration, there was an atmosphere of foreboding.

At the reconciliation in France, Henry had agreed to the punishment of Roger, archbishop of York, and the bishops of London and Salisbury, who had assisted at the coronation of Henry's son, despite the long-established right of the archbishop of Canterbury to perform this ceremony and in defiance of the Pope's explicit instructions. It had been another attempt to lower the prestige of the primate's see. Thomas had sent on in advance of his return the papal letters suspending Roger and confirming the excommunication of the two bishops involved. On the eve of his arrival a deputation waited on him to ask for the withdrawal of these sentences. He agreed on condition that the three would swear thenceforth to obey the Pope. This they refused to do, and together went to rejoin King Henry, who was visiting his domains in France.

At Canterbury Thomas was subjected to insult by one Ranulf de Broc, from whom he had demanded the restoration of Saltwood Castle, a manor previously belonging to the archbishop's see. After a week's stay there he went up to London, where Henry's son, "the young King," refused to see him. He arrived back in Canterbury on or about his fifty-second birthday. Meanwhile the three bishops had laid their complaints before the King at Bur, near Bayeux, and someone had exclaimed aloud that there would be no peace for the realm while Becket lived. At this, the King, in a fit of rage, pronounced some words which several of his hearers took as a rebuke to them for allowing Becket to continue to live and thereby disturb him. Four of his knights at once set off for England and made their way to the irate family at Saltwood. Their names were Reginald Fitzurse, William de Tracy, Hugh de Morville, and Richard le Bret.

On St. John's day Thomas received a letter warning him of danger, and all southeast Kent was in a state of ferment. On the afternoon of December 29, the four knights came to see him in his episcopal palace. During the interview they made several demands, in particular that Thomas remove the censures on the three bishops. The knights withdrew, uttering threats and oaths. A few minutes later there were loud outcries, a shattering of doors and clashing of arms, and the archbishop, urged on by his attendants, began moving slowly through the cloister passage to the cathedral. It was now twilight and vespers were being sung. At the door of the north transept he was met by some terrified monks, whom he commanded to get back to the choir. They withdrew a little and he entered the church, but the knights were seen behind him in the dim light. The monks slammed the door on them and bolted it. In their confusion they shut out several of their own brethren, who began beating loudly on the door.

Becket turned and cried, "Away, you cowards ! A church is not a castle." He reopened the door himself, then went towards the choir, accompanied by Robert de Merton, his aged teacher and confessor, William Fitzstephen, a cleric in his household, and a monk, Edward Grim. The others fled to the crypt and other hiding places, and Grim alone remained. At this point the knights broke in shouting, "Where is Thomas the traitor?" "Where is the archbishop?" "Here I am," he replied, "no traitor, but archbishop and priest of God!" He came down the steps to stand between the altars of Our Lady and St. Benedict.

The knights clamored at him to absolve the bishops, and Thomas answered firmly, "I cannot do other than I have done. Reginald, you have received many favors from me.

Why do you come into my church armed?" Fitzurse made a threatening gesture with his axe. "I am ready to die," said Thomas, "but God's curse on you if you harm my people." There was some scuffling as they tried to carry Thomas outside bodily.

Fitzurse flung down his axe and drew his sword. "You pander, you owe me fealty and submission!" exclaimed the archbishop. Fitzurse shouted back, "I owe no fealty contrary to the King ! " and knocked off Thomas' cap. At this, Thomas covered his face and called aloud on God and the saints. Tracy struck a blow, which Grim intercepted with his own arm, but it grazed Thomas' skull and blood ran down into his eyes. He wiped the stain away and cried, "Into Thy hands, O Lord, I commend my spirit!" Another blow from Tracy beat him to his knees, and he pitched forward onto his face, murmuring, "For the name of Jesus and in defense of the Church I am willing to die." With a vigorous thrust Le Bret struck deep into his head, breaking his sword against the pavement, and Hugh of Horsea added a blow, although the archbishop was now dying. Hugh de Morville stood by but struck no blow. The murderers, brandishing their swords, now dashed away through the cloisters, shouting "The King's men! The King's men!" The cathedral itself was filling with people unaware of the catastrophe, and a thunderstorm was breaking overhead.[2] The archbishop's body lay in the middle of the transept, and for a time no one dared approach it. A deed of such sacrilege was bound to be regarded with horror and indignation. When the news was brought to the King, he shut himself up and fasted for forty days, for he knew that his chance remark had sped the courtiers to England bent on vengeance. He later performed public penance in Canterbury Cathedral and in 1172 received absolution from the papal delegates.

Within three years of his death the archbishop had been canonized as a martyr. Though far from a faultless character, Thomas Becket, when his time of testing came, had the courage to lay down his life to defend the ancient rights of the Church against an aggressive state. The discovery of his hairshirt and other evidences of austerity, and the many miracles which were reported at his tomb, increased the veneration in which he was held. The shrine of the "holy blessed martyr," as Chaucer called him, soon became famous, and the old Roman road running from London to Canterbury known as "Pilgrim's Way." His tomb was magnificently adorned with gold, silver, and jewels, only to be despoiled by Henry VIII; the fate of his relics is uncertain. They may have been destroyed as a part of Henry's policy to subordinate the English Church to the civil authority. Mementoes of this saint are preserved at the cathedral of Sens. The feast of St. Thomas of Canterbury is now kept throughout the Roman Catholic Church, and in England he is regarded as the protector of the secular clergy.

Endnotes:

1 A hide of land was the amount considered necessary for the support of one household; it varied from eighty to a hundred acres, according to location.

2 T. S. Eliot's play, "The Murder in the Cathedral," gives us the dramatic sequence of events with high artistry.

Thomas, by the grace of God humble minister of the church> of Canterbury, to his reverend brothers, all the bishops, by God's grace, of the province of Canterbury,—if, indeed, they all wrote me,—greeting and a will to do what as yet they do not.

. . . One thing I say to you, to speak out, saving your peace. For a long time I have been silent, waiting if perchance the Lord would inspire you to pluck up your strength again; if perchance one, at least, of you all would arise and take his stand as a wall to defend the house of Israel, would put on at least the appearance of entering the battle against those who never cease daily to attack the army of the Lord. I have waited; not one has arisen. I have endured; not one has taken a stand. I have been silent; not one has spoken. I have dissimulated; not one has fought even in appearance....

May God lift the veil from your hearts that you may know what you ought to do. Let any man of you say who knows if ever since my promotion I have taken from anyone of you his ox or his ass or his money, if I have judged anyone's cause unjustly, if out of anyone's loss I have won gain for myself, and I will return it fourfold. If I have done nothing to offend you, why leave me alone to defend the cause of God? . . .

Let us then, all together, make haste to act so that God's wrath descend not on us as on negligent and idle shepherds, that we be not counted dumb dogs, too feeble to bark, that passersby speak not scorn of us.... In truth, if you hear me, be assured that God will be with you and with us all, in all our ways, to uphold peace and defend the liberty of the Church. If you will not hear, let God be judge between me and you and from your hands demand account for the confusion of the Church.... But this hope I have stored in my breast, that he is not alone who has the Lord with him. If he fall, he shall not be destroyed for the Lord himself upholds him with his hand . . .

My lord knows with what intent he chose to have us exalted. Let his purpose reply to him and we will reply to him, as our office requires of us, that by God's mercy we are more faithful in our severity than are those who flatter him with lies. For better are the blows of a friend than the false kisses of an enemy. By implication you charge us with ingratitude. We believe that no criminal act brings with it disgrace unless it comes from the soul. So if a man unintentionally commits murder, although he is called a murderer and is one, still he does not bear the guilt of murder. So we say that even if by right of lordship we owe our lord king service, if we are bound by the law of kings to show him reverence, if we have upheld him as lord, if we have treated him as our own son with fatherly affection, and if then in council, to our grief, he has not listened to us and we, as our office compels us, are severe in our censure of him, we believe we are doing more for him and with him than against him, and more deserve gratitude from him than a charge of ingratitude or punishment....

You remind us of the danger to the Roman Church, of loss of temporal possessions.

There is danger indeed to us and ours, without mentioning the danger to souls. You imply a threat of the lord king's withdrawal (which God forbid!) from fealty and devotion to the Roman Church. God forbid, I say, that our lord king's fealty and devotion should ever for some temporal advantage or disadvantage swerve from fealty and devotion to the Roman Church. Such conduct, which would be wicked and reprehensible m a private man, would be far more so in a prince, who draws many along with him and after him.... Do you in your discretion look to it that the words of your mouths do not infect some other man or men, to the loss and damnation of their souls, like the golden cup, called the cup of Babylon, which is smeared within and without with poison, but from which one may drink and not fear the poison because he sees the gold. Even such may be the effect of your conduct on the people....

In the midst of tribulation and bloodshed the Church from of old has increased and multiplied. It is the way the Church to win her victories when men are persecuting her, to arrive at under standing when men are refuting her, to gain strength when men are forsaking her. Do not, my brothers, weep for her but for yourselves who are making by your acts and words a name, and not a great one, for yourselves in everyone's mouth, who are calling down on yourselves the hatred of God and of the world, preparing a snare for the innocent, and fashioning new and ingenious reasons for overthrowing the liberty of the Church. By God's mercy, brothers, you are laboring in vain, for the Church, although often shaken, will stand in the courage and steadfastness on which she was steadfastly founded, until the Son of perdition arises. As for him, we do not believe he will arise in the West, unless the order of events and the sequence of history is wrongfully altered.

But if your concern is for the temporal things, we should fear more a danger to the soul than to them. For the Scripture says: "What doth it profit a man to gain the whole world and lose his own soul?" Hence the peril to us and to ours we utterly scorn. He is not to be feared who kills the body, but He who kills both body and soul....

Pray for us that our faith fail not in tribulation and that we may safely say with the Apostle that neither death nor life nor angels nor any creature shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which has subjected us to affliction until He come Who will come, and will do with us according to his mercy, and will lead us into the land of promise, the land flowing with milk and honey....

* This letter was written in 1166, while Thomas was in exile in France, in reply to a letter from the bishops and other clergy of England, deploring his hostile and implacable attitude towards Ring Henry and urging him for the sake of the Church to be more conciliatory and forgiving.

Saint Thomas Becket, Bishop, Martyr. Celebration of Feast Day is December 29.

Taken from "Lives of Saints", Published by John J. Crawley & Co., Inc.

There is a romantic legend that the mother of Thomas Becket was a Saracen princess who followed his father, a pilgrim or crusader, back from the Holy Land, and wandered about Europe repeating the only English words she knew, “London” and “Becket,” until she found him. According to a contemporary writer, Thomas Becket was the son of Gilbert Becket, sheriff of London. Whatever his parentage, we know with certainty that the future chancellor and archbishop of Canterbury was born on St. Thomas day, 1118, of a good family, and that he was educated at a school of canons regular at Merton Priory in Sussex, and later at the University of Paris.

Early in 1155 Becket became chancellor to the young king Henry II and was soon his trusted adviser; as well as controlling the King’s secretariat, he raised money for the King’s wars, accompanied the King’s armies, conducted diplomatic negotiations, and had charge of the King’s eldest son. In May 1162 Henry recommended Becket to the monks of Canterbury as successor to Theobald; he was consecrated archbishop on June 3 by the bishop of Winchester.

Becket surprised and angered the King by resigning the chancery and showing that he intended to support the large claims to independence and special privilege which had been developed by the clergy in the preceding 50 years. Henry was determined to restore all royal powers as they had been in the time of his grandfather King Henry I; inevitably he and Becket were soon in bitter conflict. The first serious cause of friction was the problem of “criminous clerks” – clergy accused of serious crimes. The question was whether these clerks should be judged and punished in the King’s courts or in those of the Church, where they would escape capital punishment.

In October 1163 the King required the bishops to confirm unconditionally the “customs of his grandfather, ” and he renewed the demand at Clarendon in January 1164. The bishops again refused, but Becket was persuaded to give a verbal promise. The customs, defining the rights of the King over the Church, were then written down for the first time, in 16 clauses later known as the Constitutions of Clarendon. Becket refused to seal them, and the King then promoted legal proceedings against him on unrelated, trumped-up charges. At Northampton (October 1164), Henry ordered the bishops and barons to judge Becket, who, however, forbade them and appealed to the Pope. He then fled secretly to France and submitted the customs to the Pope, offering to resign, but Pope Alexander III ordered him to retain his office and condemned 10 of the customs. Alexander could not, however, give effective support to Becket, since he was himself a refugee, driven from Italy by the Emperor and the antipope.

For nearly six years Becket lived in exile, first in Pontigny, later in Sens, with a few followers. He attempted to negotiate with the King, the bishops of England, and the Pope. The bishop of London, the archbishop of York, and the bishop of Salisbury all actively supported the King; others who may have been more sympathetic to Becket were isolated by Henry’s control of the ports and cowed by his ruthless methods.

Becket’s only weapon was his power to excommunicate offenders and to lay an interdict on their lands. Even this weapon was blunted by the difficulty of finding anyone to convey and publish the sentences in England and by carefully devised judicial appeals to the Pope. Moreover, on two occasions the Pope, in response to threats and promises from Henry, forbade Becket to use his powers. Negotiations continued but came to nothing, as the King insisted on unconditional acceptance of the customs, while Becket insisted on inserting the words “saving the honour of God and my order.”

In June 1170 Henry infringed the rights of Canterbury by having his son crowned by the archbishop of York; this offense forced the Pope more definitely to Becket’s side. Henry feared excommunication and an interdict not only on England but on his less loyal and more vulnerable Continental lands. He therefore allowed peace to be made with the archbishop, not mentioning the customs, and avoided giving Becket the kiss of peace. Becket, well aware of his danger, returned to England on December 1; on December 29 he was brutally murdered by four knights from the King’s court. Henry denied that he had ordered or desired the archbishop’s death; his guilt must remain an open question.

Becket was immediately regarded as a martyr, and miracles were reported. He was canonized on Feb. 21, 1173. His tomb attracted innumerable pilgrims to Canterbury and brought great wealth to the monks, who had done little for him in his lifetime. It was destroyed in 1538, and almost all representations of him were obliterated by royal order, for his memory was particularly offensive to King Henry VIII, bent on establishing supremacy over the Church.

Becket’s struggle achieved very little. Most of the disputed customs passed into law, and the bishoprics of England were filled with men who had helped the King to oppose him. But on two important points the King had to give way. In 1172, in Avranches, when he was reconciled to the Church, he agreed to allow appeals from Church courts in England to the court of the Pope, without reference to the King’s court, thus abrogating one of the customs. And in 1176 he agreed that “criminous clerks” should be tried and punished in the Church courts, excepting only those charged with first offenses. In both these matters Becket’s opposition and death affected the law of England for nearly 4 centuries.

It is significant
that Henry VIII, when he broke away from the Church and appointed himself the
head of the church in England, should have elected to remove Thomas, who had
died four centuries earlier, from the long calendar of English saints. St.
Thomas died for the rights of the Church, under the then reigning king, Henry
II, which his successor finally abrogated. In the 16th century his shrine,
which had been a major pilgrimage site for 400 years, was destroyed and the
relics that it contained were burned (although some say they were transferred
to Stoneyhurst).

Thomas stands for
the principle of God against Caesar. Somewhere between these two points,
between these respective duties, comes a dividing line, where the territories
meet. A man of conscience must decide on which side he will stand. It is the
old conflict between Church and State. It was on that difficult border line
that Thomas was called upon to live and die.

What he resisted in
those early years, other men did not see or understand, but he foresaw the
dangers ahead that eventually overwhelmed the Church in England. It reached its
full climax when Crammer was elected archbishop of Canterbury in 1533. The same
conflict goes on today elsewhere, under other forms, though Christ foretold
that Satan will not finally overcome the Church.

Thomas was born
into an ordinary, hard-working Norman family and was baptized the same day. As
he grew, his mother Matilda used to weigh the child and give the same amount of
bread to the poor that the scales showed--a generous form of charity. His
father Gilbert, the sheriff of London, ensured that Thomas was given a good,
well- rounded education. First, he was sent as a student to the monks at Merton
Abbey in Surrey, then to London, and later went to the University of Paris,
returning to England when he was 21.

He was tall and
handsome, with keen features, loved good living and fine clothing, and was fond
of outdoor sport, so he made many friends as a young man and left his mark. All
remarked upon his purity of life. He loved the lovely things of God, the noble
horse, the swift flying falcon, and God looked upon him with pleasure.

His father's death
left him in straitened circumstances. So, from about 1142, he was employed as a
clerk at the court of Archbishop Theobald of Canterbury. Because of his noble
bearing, his shrewdness and capability, the archbishop himself noticed him. He
began to trust him more with important documents, to confide in him and
eventually won his friendship. He took him into his regular service, travelling
together on the king's business, they visited France and Rome and various parts
of the Continent. Thus Thomas came into contact with the highest in the land,
even became a close friend of the king himself, who like the archbishop took a
fancy to him.

About this time
Thomas obtained permission to study canon and civil law at Bologna and Auxerre,
which afterward fitted him well for the work he was to undertake. He was
awarded for his many services by the benefices of several churches, as was
customary in those days, though he was not yet a priest.

In 1154, while still
quite young, Thomas was ordained a deacon and appointed archdeacon of
Canterbury. In this position, Archbishop Theobald used him as a negotiator with
the Crown. Thomas became a favorite of Henry of Anjou when he convinced Pope
Eugene III not to recognize the succession of King Stephen of Blois' son,
Eustace, thus ensuring Henry's right to the English throne as Henry II.

The following year
(1155), at Theobald's suggestion, Thomas was made Chancellor of England, a post
in which he loyally served Henry II for seven years as statesman, diplomat, and
soldier. Thomas's personal efficiency, lavish entertainment, and support for
the king's interests even, on occasion, against those of the Church, made him
an outstanding royal official.

All these dignities
were a wonderful ascent, but Thomas rose rapidly to power by his ability and by
his magnetic personality, which all who associated with him remarked upon. The
state of the country improved greatly under his rule as chancellor; his
business was to administer the law and this he did with impartiality to all
alike, to churchmen as well as laymen.

God brought this
servant along a strange and long road, preparing step by step the instrument of
his design, as he does with every individual according to the plan of life and
work he has chosen for him.

When the king
selected him for his final post, being his close friend, he must have thought
he would have an obedient tool, which he could use as he wished. He had made a
wrong choice to carry out his evil designs. He wished to curb the power of the
Church, to regulate her benefices to make appointments to suit himself, in fact
to take from the Church the rights which were peculiarly her own. Though Thomas
had outwardly appeared worldly, he loved rather the things of God and His
Church. "If you make me Archbishop," he said, "you will regret
it. You say you love me now; well that love will turn to hatred."

So it came about as
he had foretold. When accepting the office of archbishop of Canterbury in 1162,
he took over the authority--his training and character fitted him for so high a
dignity but henceforth he would be a different man; from the day of his
election he completely changed. He had served the king, now he was to serve the
King of kings, where glory lies in discipline and humility. To Henry's
amazement and annoyance, Thomas resigned the chancellorship and was ordained a
priest the day before his episcopal consecration.

He had not wished
to be made archbishop, but when the office fell to him, his style of life
changed radically. As Thomas put it, he changed from being "a patron of
play-actors and a follower of hounds, to being a shepherd of souls." Now
that he was a priest he lived as one, putting aside all the costly robes he
used as Chancellor; he wore the habit of a monk.

Every morning he
said his Mass in the cathedral with great devotion and even with tears, as
those who saw him testify. Nightly he took part in the divine office that was
chanted by the community of monks, of which he was the head. He was also profuse
in alms- giving. Daily he attended to the business in hand, which must have
been very great, since now he was primate of England.

Now that he was
archbishop, he intended to carry out the proper duties of his state in life.
These included the paternal care of the king's soul, tactlessly and annoyingly
presented by his former friend.

There were many
abuses to rectify, disputes about church lands and property, clergy who were
not ready to forego their privileges. Some of his own prelates were rebellious;
their relatives, who were closely related and supporters of the king, made
trouble. In fact, two of the major points of conflict with Henry concerned the
respective jurisdictions of church and state over clergymen convicted of
crimes, and the freedom to appeal to Rome. On account of the alienation of
church lands, Thomas, who knew the state of affairs better than anyone else,
predicted trouble; it was not long in coming to a head.

In the controversy,
Henry claimed to be acting according to the customs of his grandfather that
were codified in the Constitutions of Clarendon. In the view of Henry's mother,
Matilda, this codification was a mistake. It also failed to take into account such
recent developments as the Gregorian Reform and the investiture controversy.
Becket accepted these Constitutions at first, but after understanding their
implications, rejected them. Thus ensured the conflict.

At the famous
assembly at Northampton in 1164, Thomas faced his opponents. He foresaw that
many of the knights would not be willing to fall in with his decrees, that they
would even go so far as to do away with him, if it suited their purpose; he was
courageous and unmoved by their threats: "If I am murdered," he told
the bishops, "I enjoin you to lay the interdict upon these
districts." The king, who was also present, lost his temper and showed his
real purpose in the former election: "You are my man," he said,
"I raised you from nothing and now you defy me."

"Sir,"
said Thomas, "Peter was raised from nothing yet he ruled the Church."
"Yes," replied the king, "but Peter died for his Lord."
"I, too, will die for him when the time comes," answered Thomas.

"You will not
yield to me then?" asked the king. "I will not, Sir," answered
Thomas.

Seeing there could
be no solution, Thomas thought it best to accept exile rather than any
compromise with Henry II over the rights of the Church. Perhaps the king would
see reason and then grant the Church her rights. Thomas left the country and
took refuge in France, where he remained for over six years. Upon the pope's
recommendation, Thomas entered the Cistercian monastery at Pontigny, until
Henry threatened to eliminate all Cistercian monks from his realm if they
continued to harbor Thomas. Then, in 1166, he moved to Saint Columba Abbey at
Sens, which was under the protection of King Louis VII of France.

Both sides appealed
to Pope Alexander III, who tried hard to find an acceptable solution. The
conflict grew more bitter as Henry seemed bent on Thomas's ruin and Thomas
censured the king's supporters and even attempted to obtain an interdict.

At last King Louis
VII of France persuaded Henry II to go to Thomas and make peace but no promises
were made on either side. Henry thought that on his return Thomas would not
press his claims. Henry admitted the freedom of appeals to Rome, but kept the
real power with himself.

Scarcely had Thomas
been welcomed back to his community in England when on December 1, 1170, they began
to quarrel again. When Henry heard, in Normandy, that the pope had
excommunicated the recalcitrant bishops for usurping the rights of the
archbishop of Canterbury and that Thomas would not release them until they
swore obedience to the pope, he flew into a violent, reckless rage, saying:
"Is there no one who will rid me of this turbulent priest?" These
were words spoken in anger and not intentional; however, four knights who were
with the king, determined to take matters into their own hands. They took ship
and crossed to England at once. It was in Advent and Christmas was approaching.

On December 29,
1170, four knights with a troop of soldiers appeared outside Canterbury
Cathedral demanding to see the archbishop. They were determined to murder
Archbishop Becket, believing they had the blessing of Henry II to do so.

With a few priest
attendants, for most of the community of monks were in the church saying
vespers, the archbishop was in the palace adjoining, attending to business.
Sensing trouble they at first urged him, then eventually forced him against his
will to go into the church, not only to avoid the rabble but to find sanctuary
there, closing the doors behind them. Thomas forbade them under obedience to
close the doors: "A church must not be turned into a castle," he
said.

"Why do you
behave so?" he asked. "What do you fear?" "They can do
naught but what God permits."

In the
semi-darkness, for it was past dusk at that time of the year, the knights with
drawn swords forcing their way into the church demanded angrily, "Where is
the traitor, where is the archbishop?"

"Here I
am," said Thomas, "no traitor but a priest of God. I wonder that in
such attire you have entered into the church of God. What is it you want with
me?" One of the knights raised his sword as if to strike the holy man, but
his companion stretching out his arm, shielded the blow.

"Put up your
sword," said St. Thomas, "not such is the defense the Lord would
have."

The knights rushing
forward together perpetrated their foul deed-- they slew St. Thomas on the
steps of his own sanctuary and scattered his brains upon the floor. As he was
killed by successive blows, Thomas repeated the names of those archbishops
martyred before him: Saint Denis and Saint Elphege of Canterbury. Then he said,
"Into Your hand, O Lord, I commend my spirit."

His last words,
according to one eye-witness, were: "Willingly I die for the name of Jesus
and in defense of the Church."

Near to the
high-altar, where the seat was, upon which he and all his predecessors from
time immemorial had been enthroned, he was martyred and gave up his soul to
God. Every step of his martyrdom is linked with that of the Passion of Christ;
from the incident in the cloister-garth, where he was first apprehended with
his few companions, to his burial in the tomb, which was newly hewn out of the
rock. In truth there is a marvelous similitude between the deaths of Master and
servant that his early biographers, voicing the sentiments of the common
people, were not slow to use.

All Christendom was
aghast. Henry was forced to do public penance for the murder of Thomas,
including the construction of the monastery at Witham in Somerset, described in
the life of Saint Hugh of Lincoln.

Many miracles
followed immediately upon his death. Within ten years, 703 miracles were
recorded. He was universally acclaimed a saint even before his canonization by
Pope Alexander III, two years after his death. Thomas was not flawless; he was
imperious and obstinate, ambitious and violent. Yet all the time more exalted
qualities were also exhibited. The years of exile at Pontigny and Sens were a
time of preparation for the final ordeal.

Thomas was a martyr
for Christ, most like to him in his death. The solemn translation of the relics
to a new shrine behind the high altar took place in the year 1220 (July 7). The
ceremony was the most magnificent ever seen and people came from all over
Europe to assist at it.

The shrine-tomb of
St. Thomas Becket was of unparalleled splendor, perhaps the richest in the
whole world. Nothing of it now remains for it was plundered of all its riches
during the reign of Henry VIII. It has been thus described: "All above the
stonework was first of wood, jewels of gold set with stone, covered with plates
of gold, wrought upon with gold wire, then again with jewels, gold as brooches,
images, angels, rings, ten or twelve together, clawed with gold into the ground
of gold. The spoils of which filled to chests, such as six or eight men could
but convey one out of the Church. At one side was a stone with an angel of
gold, pointing thereunto, offered there by a king of France, which king Henry
put into a ring and wore on his thumb" (Morris).

St. Thomas was a
fearless champion of truth and righteousness, against wicked and unscrupulous
men. Even the king made reparation and did penance at his shrine. He teaches us
that we must be prepared to face persecution and even death for our faith and
for the rights of the Church against the state.

In most European
countries today the state is supreme--God and religion have no place. We are
soldiers of Christ, confirmed and anointed with the holy chrism; let us be
strong and fearless then in our endeavor. Pray to St. Thomas in your present
need. He died for the faith for which we should all live (Abbott, Attwater,
Belloc, Benedictines, Bentley, Delaney, Duggan, Encyclopedia, Farmer, Hope,
Hutton, Knowles, Morris, Murray, Speaight, Tancred, White).

St. Thomas
is generally portrayed as an archbishop killed at the altar by three knights,
his crucifer by him. There can be differences. Sometimes (1) there is only one
knight, (2) there is a candle-bearer by him, (3) he has a sword in his bleeding
head, (4) the tail of his horse is cut off as he rides through Rochester, (5)
angels sing Laetabitur justus at his requiem, (6) he is consecrated in the
presence of the king, or (7) he is accompanied by his crucifer in the presence
of the Pope. He is venerated at Sens (Roeder).

See his life by John of Salisbury,
his chaplain, who attended him during most part of his exile, and was present
at his death: he died bishop of Chartres, and his learning and integrity are
much extolled by Cave, Hist. Liter. t. 2, p. 243. This work was published
entire, with the epistles of John of Salisbury, at Paris, in 1611; but is
mangled and curtailed in the Quadrilogus, or Life of St. Thomas, compiled by
command of Pope Gregory XI. out of four original lives of this saint brought
into one, viz. by Herbert, the martyr’s clerk, William of Canterbury, Alan
abbot of Deoche, and John of Salisbury. This Quadrilogus or Quadripartite, was
printed at Brussels by the care of Lupus, with a large collection of St.
Thomas’s epistles, an. 1682. Many of his letters had been published by
Baronius: but a great number remain unpublished amongst the MSS. in the
Cottonian library, several libraries at Oxford, Bennet College at Cambridge,
and other places. M. Sparke, among Historiæ Anglicanæ Scriptores Varii nunc
primum editi, printed at London in 1723, has given us the life of St. Thomas,
compiled by William Fitz-Stephens, (in Latin Stephanides,) a clergyman, who
belonged first to his court of Chancery, afterwards to his family, lived with
him several years, and saw him wounded by the assassins and expire. This
saint’s life by Edmund Grime, and another life which begins, “Post summi
favoris;” also P. Thomæ Rubrica seu Consuetudines, are kept in MS. in the
Norforcian or Arundelian library, given to the Royal Society by H. duke of
Norfolk in 1679.1 Another account called Passio S.
Thomæ, is given by Martenne, Thesaur. Anecdot. t. 3, p. 1137. Several epistles,
and other writings relating to his history, are published by Wilkins, Conc.
Brit, t. 1, p. 437. The life of St. Thomas was written by Dr. Stapleton, and is
extant in his Tres Thomæ. An English life of this martyr, extracted chiefly
from Baronius, dedicated to Dr. Richard Smith, bishop of Chalcedon, was printed
in 1639. A history of his canonization is given us by Muratori. Scriptor. Ital.
t. 2, in Vita Alexandri III. See also the histories and chronicles of Hoveden,
Matthew Paris, Gervase, Brompton, &c. His life is well compiled in French
by M. Du Fossé, who had a share in the Lives of Saints, compiled by the
messieurs of Port Royal. On the virtues of this saint, see the most honourable
and edifying account of his saintly deportment given by Peter of Blois, the
pious and learned archdeacon of Bath, in a letter which he wrote upon his
martyrdom, ep. 27. See Hearne, Not. in Gul. Neubr. t. 3, p. 638. Item on Peter
Langtoft’s chronicle, t. 2, p. 529. Also Benedictus abbas Petrob. de Gestis
Henr. II. et Rich. I. by Hearne, t. 1, pp. 10, 11, 12, 20.

A.D. 1170

ST. THOMAS BECKET was born in London
in 1117, on the 21st of December. His father Gilbert Becket was a gentleman of
middling fortune, who, in his youth, made a pilgrimage to Jerusalem with divers
others, and falling into the hands of the Saracens, remained a year and a half
a prisoner, or rather a slave, to one of their emirs, or admirals. An only
daughter of this emir hearing him one day explain the Christian faith, and
declare, upon the question being put to him, that he should with the greatest
joy lay down his life for the love of God, if he was made worthy of such a
happiness, was so touched, as to conceive on the spot a desire of becoming a
Christian. This she made known to Mr. Becket, who contented himself with
telling her, that she would be very happy if God gave her that grace, though it
were attended with the loss of every thing this world could afford. He and his
fellow-slaves soon after made their escape in the night-time, and returned safe
to London. The young Syrian lady privately left her father’s house and followed
him thither, and being instructed in the faith and baptized by the name of Maud
or Mathildes, she was married to him in St. Paul’s church by the bishop of
London. Soon after Gilbert went back into the East, to join the crusade or holy
war, and remained in those parts three years and a half. Maud was brought to
bed of our saint a little time after his departure, about a twelvemonth after
their marriage, and being herself very pious, she taught her son from his
infancy to fear God, and inspired him with a tender devotion to the Blessed
Virgin. His father, after his return to England, was, in his turn, sheriff2 of London. Fitz-Stephens assures
us, that he never put money out at interest, and never embarked in any
commerce, but being contented with his patrimony, lived on the annual income.
His death, in 1138, left our saint exposed to the dangers of the world at an
age when the greatest mistakes in life are frequently committed. But he had
been educated in habits of temperance, obedience, and self-denial, and was so
thoroughly grounded in the maxims of the gospel as to stand firmly upon his
guard, and to do nothing but by good advice. His father had placed him in his
childhood in a monastery of canon regulars, and after his death, Thomas
continued his studies in London, where Fitz-Stephens informs us there were then
three very great schools belonging to the three principal churches, in which
public declamations were made, and frequent literary disputations held with
great emulation between both masters and scholars. Here Thomas pursued his
studies till the age of twenty-one years, when having lost his mother he
discontinued them for a year: but considering the dangers which surrounded him
while unemployed, he resolved to re-assume them. He therefore went first to
Oxford, and shortly after to Paris, where he applied himself diligently to the
canon law, and various other branches of literature. When he came back to
London, he was first made clerk or secretary to the court of the city, and
distinguished himself by his capacity in public affairs. He was afterwards
taken into the family of a certain young nobleman in the country, who was
extremely fond of hunting and hawking. In this situation, Thomas began to be
carried away with a love of these diversions, which were become his only
business; so that by this company he grew more remiss in the service of God. An
awakening accident opened his eyes. One day, when he was eager in the pursuit
of game, his hawk made a stoop at a duck, and dived after it into a river.
Thomas, apprehensive of losing his hawk, leaped into the water, and the stream
being rapid, carried him down to a mill, and he was saved only by the sudden stopping
of the wheel, which appeared miraculous. Thomas, in gratitude to God his
deliverer, resolved to betake himself to a more serious course of life, and
returned to London. His virtue and abilities gave him a great reputation; and
nothing can sooner gain a man the confidence of others as that inflexible
integrity and veracity, which always formed the character of our saint. Even in
his childhood he always chose rather to suffer any blame, disgrace, or
punishment, than to tell an untruth; and in his whole life he was never found
guilty of a lie in the smallest matter.

A strict intimacy had intervened
between Theobald, who was advanced to the archbishopric of Canterbury in 1138,
and our saint’s father, they being both originally from the same part of
Normandy, about the village of Tierrie. Some persons, therefore, having
recommended Thomas to that prelate, he was invited to accept of some post in
his family. Attended only with one squire, named Ralph of London, he joined the
archbishop, who then was at the village of Harwe or Harrow. Thomas was tall of
stature, his countenance was beautiful and pleasing, his senses quick and
lively, and his discourse very agreeable. Having taken orders a little before
this, he was presented by the Bishop of Worcester to the church of Shoreham,3 afterwards by the abbot of St.
Alban’s to that of Bratfield.4 With the leave of the archbishop he
went to Italy, and there studied the canon law a year at Bologna; then some
time at Auxerre. After his return the archbishop ordained him deacon, and he
was successively preferred to the provostship of Beverley, and to canonries at
Lincoln’s and at St. Paul’s in London: the archbishop nominated him archdeacon
of Canterbury, which was then looked upon as the first ecclesiastical dignity
in England after the abbacies and bishoprics, which gave a seat in the house of
lords.5 The archbishop committed to our
saint the management of the most intricate affairs, seldom did any thing
without his advice, sent him several times to Rome on important errands, and
never had reason to repent of the choice he had made, or of the confidence he
reposed in him. The contest between King Stephen and the Empress Maud with her
son Henry II. had threatened the kingdom with a dreadful flame, which was only
prevented by a mutual agreement of the parties, ratified by the whole kingdom,
by which Stephen was allowed to hold the crown during life, upon condition that
at his death it should devolve upon Henry the right heir. Notwithstanding this
solemn settlement, Stephen endeavoured to fix the crown on his son Eustachius.
Theobald refused to consent to so glaring an injustice; for which he was
banished the kingdom, but recalled with honour shortly after. The conduct of
the archbishop on this occasion was owing to the advice of Thomas, who thus
secured the crown in peace to Henry. Theobald, who had before made him his
archdeacon, and by a long experience had found him proof against all the
temptations of the world, and endued with a prudence capable of all manner of
affairs, recommended him to the high office of lord chancellor of England, to
which King Henry, who had ascended the throne on the 20th of December, 1154,
readily exalted him in 1157. The saint’s sweetness of temper, joined with his
integrity and other amiable qualities, gained him the esteem and affection of
every one, especially of his prince, who took great pleasure in his
conversation, often went to dine with him, and committed to his care the
education of his son, Prince Henry, to be formed by him in sound maxims of
honour and virtue. He sent him also into France to negotiate a treaty with that
crown, and conclude a marriage between his son Henry and Margaret, daughter to
Lewis the Younger, king of France; in both which commissions he succeeded to
his master’s desires.6 Amidst the honours and prosperity
which he enjoyed, he always lived most humble, modest, mortified, recollected,
compassionate, charitable to the poor without bounds, and perfectly chaste; and
triumphed over all the snares which wicked courtiers, and sometimes the king
himself, laid for his virtue, especially his chastity.7 The persecutions which envy and
jealousy raised against him he overcame by meekness and silence.

Theobald, archbishop of Canterbury,
died in 1160. King Henry was then in Normandy with his chancellor, whom he
immediately resolved to raise to that dignity. Some time after, he bade him
prepare himself to go to England for an affair of importance, and in taking
leave explained his intentions to him. Thomas, after alleging many excuses,
flatly told the king: “Should God permit me to be archbishop of Canterbury I
should soon lose your majesty’s favour, and the great affection with which you
honour me would be changed into hatred. For your majesty will be pleased to
suffer me to tell you, that several things you do in prejudice of the
inviolable rights of the church, make me fear you would require of me what I
could not agree to: and envious persons would not fail to make this pass for a
crime, in order to make me lose your favour.” Such was the generous liberty of
this man of God, and his serious desire to deliver himself from the dangers
which threatened him. The king paid no regard to his remonstrances; and sent
over certain noblemen into England to manage the affairs with the clergy of the
kingdom, and the chapter of Canterbury, ordering them to labour with the same
ardour to place the chancellor in the see of Canterbury as they would to set
the crown on his son’s head. St. Thomas obeyed in going to England, but refused
to acquiesce in accepting the dignity till the Cardinal of Pisa, legate from
the holy see in England, overruled all his scruples by the weight of his
authority. The election was made on the eve of Whitsunday in 1162, a synod of
bishops at London ratified the same, and the prince, then in London, gave his
consent in his father’s name, and the saint set out immediately from London to
Canterbury. On the road he gave a private charge to one of the clergy of his
church, to advertise him of all the faults which he should observe in his
conduct; for even an enemy by his reproaches is often more useful to us than a
flattering friend. The archbishop soon after his consecration received the
pallium from Pope Alexander III., which John of Salisbury brought him from
Rome. He had hitherto employed all his time in prayer to beg the light of
heaven, and from that time began to exert himself in the discharge of his
pastoral duties. Next his skin he always wore a hair shirt; over this he put on
the habit of a Benedictin monk from the time he was made archbishop; and over
this the habit of a canon, of very light stuff. By the rule of life which he
laid down for his private conduct, he rose at two o’clock in the morning, and
after matins washed the feet of thirteen poor persons, to each of whom he
distributed money. It was most edifying to see him with profound humility
melting in tears at their feet, and begging the assistance of their prayers. At
the hour of prime his almoner washed the feet of twelve others, and gave them
bread and meat. The archbishop returned to take a little rest after matins, and
washing the feet of the first company of poor persons; but rose again very
early to pray and to read the holy scriptures, which he did assiduously, and
with the most profound respect. He found in them such unction that he had them
always in his hands even when he walked, and desired holy solitude that he
might bury himself in them. He kept always a learned person with him to
interpret to him these sacred oracles, whom he consulted on the meaning of
difficult passages; so much did he fear to rely on his own lights by
presumption, though others admired his wisdom and learning. After his morning
meditation he visited those that were sick among his monks and clergy; at nine
o’clock he said mass, or heard one if out of respect and humility he did not
celebrate himself. He often wept at the divine mysteries. At ten a third daily
alms was distributed, in all to one hundred persons; and the saint doubled all
the ordinary alms of his predecessor. He dined at three o’clock, and took care
that some pious book was read at table. He never had dishes of high price, yet
kept a table decently served for the sake of others; but was himself very
temperate and mortified. One day a monk saw him in company eat the wing of a
pheasant, and was scandalized like the Pharisee, saying he thought him a more
mortified man. The archbishop meekly answered him, that gluttony might be
committed in the grossest food, and that the best might be taken without it,
and with indifference. After dinner he conversed a little with some pious and
learned clergymen on pious subjects, or on their functions. He was most
rigorous in the examination of persons who were presented to holy orders, and
seldom relied upon any others in it. Such was the order he had established in
his house that no one in it durst ever receive any present. He regarded all the
poor as his children, and his revenues seemed more properly theirs than his
own. He reprehended with freedom the vices of the great ones, and recovered out
of the hands of several powerful men lands of his church which had been usurped
by them; in which the king was his friend and protector. He assisted at the
council of Tours assembled by Pope Alexander III., in 1163. He obliged the king
to fill the two sees of Worcester and Hereford, which he had long held in his
hands, with worthy prelates whom the saint consecrated.

The devil, envying the advantage
which accrued to the church from the good harmony which reigned between the
king and the archbishop, laboured to sow the seeds of discord between them. St.
Thomas first offended his majesty by resigning the office of chancellor, which,
out of complaisance to him, he had kept some time after he was nominated
archbishop. But the source of all this mischief was an abuse by which the king
usurped the revenues of the vacant sees and other benefices, and deferred a
long time to fill them that he might the longer enjoy the temporalities, as
some of his predecessors had sacrilegiously done before him: which injustice
St. Thomas would by no means tolerate. A third debate was, that the archbishop
would not allow lay judges to summon ecclesiastical persons before their
tribunals. By the zeal with which he curbed the officers or noblemen who
oppressed the church or its lands, compelling them to restore some which they
had unjustly usurped, or which had been given them by former incumbents or
bishops who had no right to bestow them, at least beyond the term of their own
lives, he exasperated several courtiers, who began first to misrepresent his
conduct herein to the king. The king, however, still showed him the greatest
marks of favour; and seemed still to love him, as he had done from his first
acquaintance, above all men living. The first sign of displeasure happened at
Woodstock, when the king was holding his court there with the principal
nobility. It was customary to pay two shillings a year upon every hide of land
to the king’s officers, who in place of the sheriffs were employed to maintain
the public peace in every county. This sum the king ordered to be paid into his
exchequer. The archbishop made a modest remonstrance, that without being
wanting in respect to his majesty, this might not be exacted as a revenue of
the crown; adding, “If the sheriffs, their serjeants, or the officers of the
provinces defend the people, we shall not be wanting to relieve and succour
them,” (viz. either with pecuniary supplies and recompences, and affording them
assistance by the constables and other civil peace-officers.) The king replied
with warmth, making use of a familiar impious oath, “By God’s eyes, this shall
be paid as a revenue, or those who do not pay it, shall be prosecuted by a writ
of the royal exchequer.” The archbishop answered that none of his vassals would
pay it, nor any of the clergy. The king said no more at that time; but his
resentment was the greater: and the complaints at court were only raised
against the clergy, without any further mention of the laity, who were equally
concerned. Thus is the case stated by Grime. The archbishop seems to have
spoken of it as a parliamentary affair; nor are the circumstances sufficiently
known for historians to state it fully at this distance of time. We are only
informed that the nobility and the whole nation, which under Henry I. and
Stephen had enjoyed their ancient privileges and liberties, were then under the
greatest apprehensions that the tyranny and cruel vexations of the Conqueror and
his son Rufus, would be revived by Henry under the title of Conqueror.

Another affair happened which raised
a greater flame. A certain priest, called Philip of Broi, was accused of having
murdered a military man. According to the laws of those times he was to be
first tried in the ecclesiastical court, and if found guilty, degraded, and
delivered over to the lay judges to be tried and punished by them. Philip,
after a long trial was acquitted of the murder by a sentence of his ordinary,
the bishop of Lincoln; but seems to have been found guilty of manslaughter, or
of having involuntarily killed the man. For by large sums of money he satisfied
the deceased person’s relations, and received from them a full release and
discharge from all obligations and further prosecution, as Grime mentions. A
king’s sheriff long after this affair, out of a pique revived this slander of
the murder with much harsh language, and threatened to bring him again to a
trial. The priest alleged, that having been once acquitted by a fair trial
according to law, and having moreover a discharge of the relations and friends
of the deceased person, he could not be impeached again upon the indictment:
but growing warm treated the sheriff with very injurious language. The king
sent an order to certain bishops and other officers to try the offender, both
for the former crime of murder and the late misdemeanour; the murder he denied
and produced the sentence by which he had been acquitted to set aside a second
trial; confessed himself guilty of the misdemeanour by injurious words in his
anger, begged pardon, and promised all satisfaction in his power. The
commissioners passed sentence, that for the misdemeanour his prebend should be
confiscated for two years into the king’s hands, who would order the revenue to
be given in alms to the poor at his pleasure; that the offender should quit the
clerical gown, and live in subjection to the king’s officer, and present him
his armour; all which he readily complied with. For the security of his life
the archbishop had taken him under the protection of the Church. The king thought
the sentence too mild, and said to the bishops and other commissioners, “By
God’s eyes you shall swear that you pronounced sentence according to justice,
and did not favour him on account of his clerical character.” They offered to
swear it; but the king betook himself to his courtiers. Soon after he told the
archbishop and bishops that he would require of them an oath that they would
maintain all the customs of the kingdom. St. Thomas understood that certain
notorious abuses and injustices were called by the king customs.
He therefore in a general meeting of the bishops at Westminster, refused that
oath, unless he might add this clause, “As far as was lawful, or consistent
with duty.” The Archbishop of York, and the Bishops of Chichester and Lincoln, were
drawn from their first resolution against it, and St. Thomas, who had resisted
the threats of the king, was overcome by the tears of the clergy, and complied
in an assembly at the king’s palace of Clarendon, in 1164. He soon after
repented of his condescension, and remained in silence and tears till he had
consulted the pope, who was then at Sens, and begged his absolution. His
holiness, in his answer, gave him the desired absolution from censures, advised
him to abstain no longer from approaching the altar, and exhorted him to repair
by an episcopal vigour the fault into which he had only been betrayed through
surprise. The king was extremely offended at the repentance of the archbishop,
and threatened his life; but the prelate boldly said he never would authorize
as custom the notorious oppressions of the Church, which his predecessors,
especially St. Anselm, had zealously condemned before him. The king, in an
assembly of the bishops and nobility at Northampton, on the 8th of October,
1164, pronounced sentence against him, by which he declared all his goods
confiscated. Several bishops and others endeavoured to persuade him to resign
his archbishopric. But he answered with great resolution that to do it in such
circumstances would be to betray the truth and the cause of the Church, by
which he was bound, by the place which he held, rather to lay down his life.
His persecutions daily increasing, he gave strict charge to his domestics and
friends to remain in silence, peace, and charity towards their enemies, to bear
injuries with patience, and never to conceive the least sentiment of rancour
against any one. His cause in the mean time was evoked to the holy see,
according to his appeal in the council, and he resolved privately to leave the
kingdom. He landed in Flanders in 1164, and arriving at the abbey of St.
Bertin’s, at St. Omer, sent from thence deputies to Lewis VII. king of France,
who received them graciously, and invited the archbishop into his dominions.
King Henry forbade any to send him any manner of assistance. St. Gilbert, abbot
of Sempringham, was called up to London, with all the procurators of his Order,
being accused of having sent him relief. Though the abbot had not done it, he
refused to swear this, because he said it would have been a virtuous action,
and he would do nothing by which he might seem to regard it as a crime.
Nevertheless, out of respect to his great sanctity, he was dismissed by an
order of the king. The pope was then at Sens in France. The bishops and other
deputies from the king of England arrived there, gained several of the
cardinals, and in a public audience accused St. Thomas before his holiness; yet
taking notice that he acquitted himself of his office with great prudence and
virtue, and governed his Church truly like a worthy prelate. St. Thomas left
St. Bertin’s after a few days’ stay, and being accompanied by the bishop of
Triers and the abbot of St. Bertin’s, went to Soissons. The king of France
happened to come thither the next day, and he no sooner heard that the
archbishop of Canterbury was there, but he went to his lodgings to testify his
veneration for his person, and obliged him to accept from him all the money he
should want during his exile. The saint pursued his journey to Sens, where be
met with a cold reception from the cardinals. When he had audience of the pope
he expressed his grief at the disturbances in England, and his desire to
procure a true peace to that church, for which end he professed himself ready
to lay down his life with joy: but then he exaggerated the evils of a false
peace, and gave in a copy of the articles which the king of England required
him to sign, and which he said tended to the entire oppression of the Church.
His justification was so moving, so full, and so modest, that the cardinals
expressed their approbation of his conduct, and the pope encouraged him to
constancy with great tenderness. In a second audience, on the day following,
the archbishop confessed with extreme humility that he had entered the see
though against his will, yet against the canons, in passing so suddenly from
the state of a layman into it, and that he had acquitted himself so ill of his
obligations in it, as to have had no more than the name of a pastor; wherefore
he resigned his dignity into the hands of his holiness, and, taking the ring
off his finger, delivered it to him, and withdrew. After a long deliberation,
the pope called him in again, and, commending his zeal, reinstated him in his
dignity, with an order not to abandon it, for that would be visibly to abandon
the cause of God. Then sending for the abbot of Pontigni, his holiness
recommended this exiled prelate to that superior of the poor of Jesus Christ,
to be entertained by him like one of them. He exhorted the archbishop to pray
for the spirit of courage and constancy.

St. Thomas regarded this austere
monastery of the Cistercian Order, not as an exile, but as a delightful
religious retreat, and a school of penance for the expiation of his sins. Not
content with the hair shirt which he constantly wore, he used frequent
disciplines and other austerities, submitted himself to all the rules of the
Order, wore the habit, and embraced with joy the most abject functions and
humiliations. He was unwilling to suffer any distinction, and would put by the
meats prepared for him and seasoned, that he might take only the portion of the
community, and that the dryest, and without seasoning or sauce; but this he did
with address, that it might not be perceived. King Henry vented his passion
against both the pope and the archbishop, confiscated the goods of all the
friends, relations, and domestics of the holy prelate, banished them from his
dominions, not sparing even infants at the breast, lying-in women, and old men;
and obliged by oath all who had attained the age of discretion to go to the
archbishop, that the sight of them and their tears might move him. This oath
they were obliged to take at Lambeth, before Ralph de Brock, whom Fitz-Stephens
calls one of the most daring and profligate of men; yet into his hands the king
had delivered the temporalities of the archbishopric to be kept; that is, says
this author, to be laid waste and destroyed. These exiles arrived in troops at
Pontigny, and the prelate could not contain his tears. Providence, however, provided
for them all by the charities of many prelates and princes. The queen of Sicily
and the archbishop of Syracuse invited many over thither, and most liberally
furnished them with necessaries. The pope and others laboured to bring the king
to a reconciliation; but that prince threatened his holiness, and committed
daily greater excesses, by threatening letters to the general chapter of
Citeaux, that he would abolish their Order in England if they continued to
harbour his enemy. Whereupon the saint left Pontigni; but a little before this
he was favoured with a revelation of his martyrdom. Whilst he lay prostrate
before the altar in prayers and tears, he heard a voice saying distinctly:
“Thomas, Thomas, my church shall be glorified in thy blood.” The saint asked:
“Who art thou, Lord?” and the same voice answered: “I am Jesus Christ, the Son
of the living God, thy brother.” He wept in taking leave of the monks at
Pontigni. The abbot thought his tears the effect of natural tenderness; but the
saint called him aside, and, bidding him not discover it before his death, told
him, he wept for those who had followed him, who would be scattered like sheep
without a pastor; for God had shown to him the night before, that he should be
slain by four men in his church, whom he saw enter it, and take off the top
part of his head. The king of France sent him the most affectionate assurances
of his protection and respect, and, rejoicing to be able to serve Jesus Christ
in the person of his exiled servant, gave orders with a royal magnificence that
he should be entertained at his expense at Sens. St. Thomas was received there
with all possible joy and respect by the archbishop, and retired to the
monastery of St. Columba, situated half a mile from the city. He excommunicated
all those who should obey the late orders of the king of England in seizing the
estates of the church, and threatened that prince himself, but mildly, and with
strong exhortations to repentance. The king, by his deputies, gained again many
cardinals at Rome, and surprised the pope himself, who began to speak in his
favour, and named two legates a latere who were devoted to him;
which drew complaints from the archbishop. The saint, according to summons, met
the legates at Gisors, on the frontiers of France and Normandy; but finding
that one of them, the cardinal of Pavia, was artfully studying to betray him,
wrote to the pope. Cardinal Otho, the other legate, represented to the king his
obligation of restoring to the church his unjust usurpations and revenues of
the see of Canterbury, which he had received; but his majesty answered he had
no scruple of that, having employed them on the church or on the poor. But the
legate said, he could not answer it at the tribunal of Christ. The king of
France, at the request of his holiness, undertook to be a mediator between the
king of England and the archbishop: The two kings had a conference together
near Gisors. St. Thomas fell at the feet of his sovereign, and was raised by
him. King Henry, among many fair speeches, said he desired no more than the
rights which former holy archbishops had not contested. The king of France said
nothing more could be desired; but the archbishop showed abuses were meant,
which former archbishops had opposed, though they had not been able to
extirpate them. If they tolerated some out of necessity, they did not approve
them, which was demanded of him. The king of France thought him too inflexible,
and the nobles of both kingdoms accused him of pride. The saint was insulted
and forsaken by all, and set out for Sens, expecting to be also banished from
France. But the king of France soon after reflecting on what he had done, sent
for the servant of God, fell at his feet with many tears, begging his pardon
and absolution of his sin, and confessing that he alone had understood the
artifices which were made use of. The archbishop gave him absolution and his
blessing, and returned to Sens. The pope sent two new legates, Gratian and
Vivian, to King Henry, and after them two others; but that prince refused
always to promise the restitution of the church revenues, and the like
articles. St. Thomas never ceased to pray, fast, and weep for the evils of his
church. No prelate had ever stronger temptations to struggle with; and
certainly nothing but conscience and the most steady virtue could ever have
obliged him to have renounced his own interests, and the favour of so great a
king, whom he most affectionately loved, for whose service, in his wars, he
furnished more troops at his own expense than could have been thought possible,
and to whom he always remained most loyal and most faithful. King Henry, among
other injuries done to the good prelate, caused his son to be crowned king by
the archbishop of York, in the very diocess of Canterbury, himself waiting upon
him at supper, and obliged his subjects, even by torments, to renounce the
obedience not only to the archbishop, but also to the pope. But it pleased God
on a sudden to change his heart, and inspire him with a desire of
reconciliation. The archbishop of Sens conducted St. Thomas to his majesty, who
received him with all the marks and expressions of his former esteem and
affection, and, with tears, desired that all their differences might be buried
in oblivion, and that they might live in perfect friendship; nor did he make
the least mention of the pretended customs which had been the occasion of these
disturbances.

The archbishop of York, a man whose
life rendered him unworthy of that character, and the bishops of London and
Salisbury, mortal enemies to the saint, began again to alienate the king from
him, by renewing in his breast former jealousies. The archbishop waited on his
majesty at Tours; but could obtain no more than a promise of the restitution of
his lands when he should have arrived in England. In the meantime he gave leave
to the officers of the archbishop of York to plunder all the goods of his
church, and the harvest of that year. Nevertheless, the archbishop having been
seven years absent, resolved to return to his church, though expecting to meet
the crown of martyrdom. Writing to the king, he closed his letter as follows:
“With your majesty’s leave I return to my church, perhaps to die there, and to
hinder at least by my death its entire destruction. Your majesty is able yet to
make me feel the effects of your clemency and religion; but whether I live or
die, I will always preserve inviolably that charity which I bear you in our
Lord; and whatever may happen to me, I pray God to heap all his graces and good
gifts on your majesty and on your children.” The holy archbishop prepared
himself for his journey with a heart filled with the love of the Cross of
Christ, and breathing nothing but the sacrifice of himself in his cause. Many
French noblemen furnished him with money and all necessaries. That he might
thank the king of France, he went to Paris, and lodged in the abbey of canon
regulars of St. Victor, where one of his hair shirts is still preserved. On the
octave of St. Austin, their patron, he was desired to preach, and made an
excellent sermon on these words: And his dwelling was made in peace.8 In taking leave of the French king,
he said: “I am going to seek my death in England.” His majesty answered: “So I
believe:” and pressed him to stay in his dominions, promising that nothing
should be wanting to him there. The saint said: “The will of God must be
accomplished.” He sent over to England the sentence of suspension and interdict
which the pope had pronounced against the archbishop of York and his
accomplices, in several unwarrantable proceedings, and excommunication against
Renald of Broke, and certain others. The saint embarked at Witsan, near Calais,
but landed at Sandwich, where he was received with incredible acclamations of
joy. He had escaped several ambuscades of his enemies on the road. The
archbishop of York demanded absolution from his censures in a threatening
manner: St. Thomas meekly offered it, on condition the other, according to the
custom of the church, would swear to submit to the conditions which should be
enjoined him. The other refused to do this, and went over to Normandy, with the
bishops of London and Salisbury, to accuse the archbishop to the king, in doing
which passion made slander pass for truth. The king, in a transport of fury
cried out, and repeated several times, that “He cursed all those whom he had
honoured with his friendship, and enriched by his bounty, seeing none of them
had the courage to rid him of one bishop, who gave him more trouble than all
the rest of his subjects.”9 Four young gentlemen in his
service, who had no other religion than to flatter their prince, viz. Sir
William Tracy, Sir Hugh Morville, Sir Richard Briton, and Sir Reginald
Fitz-Orson, conspired privately together to murder him.

The archbishop was received in
London with exceeding great triumph: but the young king sent him an order to
confine himself to the city of Canterbury. The saint alleged, that he was
obliged to make the visitation of his diocese. On Christmas-day, after mass, he
preached his last sermon to his flock, on the text, “And peace to men of
good-will on earth.” In the end he declared, that he should shortly leave them,
and that the time of his death was at hand. All wept bitterly at this news, and
the saint, seeing their tears, could not entirely contain his own: but he
comforted himself with motives of holy faith, and stood some time absorbed in
God in the sweet contemplation of his adorable will. The four assassins being
landed in England, were joined by Renald of Broke, who brought with him a troop
of armed men. They went the next day to Canterbury, and insolently upbraiding
the archbishop with treason, threatened him with death unless he absolved all
those who were interdicted or excommunicated. The saint answered, it was the
pope who had pronounced those censures, that the king had agreed to it, and
promised his assistance therein before five hundred witnesses, among whom some
of them were present, and that they ought to promise satisfaction for their
crimes before an absolution. They, in a threatening manner, gave a charge to
his ecclesiastics that were present to watch him, that he might not escape; for
the king would make him an example of justice. The saint said: “Do you imagine
that I think of flying: No, no, I wait for the stroke of death without fear.”
Then showing with his hand that part of his head where God had given him to
understand he should be struck, he said: “It is here, it is here that I expect
you.” The assassins went back, put on their bucklers and arms, as if they were
going to a battle, and taking with them the other armed men, returned to the
archbishop, who was then gone to the church, for it was the hour of vespers. He
had forbidden, in virtue of obedience, any to barricade the doors, saying, the
church was not to be made a citadel. The murderers entered sword in hand,
crying out: “Where is the traitor?” No one answered till another cried: “Where
is the archbishop?” The saint then advanced towards them, saying; “Here I am,
the archbishop, but no traitor.” All the monks and ecclesiastics ran to hide
themselves, or to hold the altars, except three who staid by his side. The
archbishop appeared without the least commotion or fear. One of the ruffians
said to him, “Now you must die.” He answered: “I am ready to die for God, for
justice, and for the liberty of his church. But I forbid you in the name of the
Almighty God, to hurt in the least any of my religious, clergy, or people. I
have defended the church as far as I was able during my life, when I saw it
oppressed, and I shall be happy if by my death at least, I can restore its
peace and liberty.” He then fell on his knees, and spoke these his last words:
“I recommend my soul and the cause of the church to God, to the Blessed Virgin,
to the holy patrons of this place, to the martyrs St. Dionysius, and St.
Elphege of Canterbury.” He then prayed for his murderers, and bowing a little
his head, presented it to them in silence. They first offered to bring him out
of the church, but he said: “I will not stir: do here what you please, or are
commanded.” The fear lest the people, who crowded into the church, should
hinder them, made them hasten the execution of their design. Tracy struck at
his head first with his sword: but an ecclesiastic who stood by, named Edward
Grim or Grimfer, (who afterwards wrote his life,) held out his arm, which was
almost cut off; but this broke the blow on the archbishop, who was only a
little stunned with it, and he held up his head with his two hands as
immoveable as before, ardently offering himself to God. Two others immediately
gave him together two violent strokes, by which he fell on the pavement near
the altar of St. Bennet, and was now expiring when the fourth, Richard Briton,
ashamed not to have dipped his sword in his blood, cut off the top part of his
head, and broke his sword against the pavement; then Hugh of Horsea inhumanly,
with the point of his sword, drew out all his brains, and scattered them on the
floor.10 After this sacrilege they went and
rifled the archiepiscopal palace with a fury which passion had heightened to
madness. The city was filled with consternation, tears, and lamentations. A
blind man recovered his sight by applying his eyes to the blood of the martyr
yet warm. The canons shut the doors of the church, watched by the corps all
night, and interred it privately the next morning, because of a report that the
murderers designed to drag it through the street. St. Thomas was martyred on
the 29th of December, in the year 1170, the fifty-third of his age, and the
ninth of his episcopacy.

The grief of all Catholic princes
and of all Christendom, at the news of this sacrilege, is not to be expressed.
King Henry, above all others, at the first news of it, forgot not only his
animosity against the saint, but even the dignity of his crown, to abandon
himself to the humiliation and affliction of a penitent who bewailed his sins
in sackcloth and ashes. He shut himself up three days in his closet, taking
almost no nourishment, and admitting no comfort: and for forty days never went
abroad, never had his table or any diversions as usual, having always before
his eyes the death of the holy prelate. He not only wept, but howled and cried
out in the excess of his grief. He sent deputies to the pope to assure him that
he had neither commanded nor intended that execrable murder. His holiness
excommunicated the assassins, and sent two legates to the king into Normandy,
who found him in the most edifying dispositions of a sincere penitent. His
majesty swore to them that he abolished the pretended customs and the abuses
which had excited the zeal of the saint, and restored all the church lands and
revenues which he had usurped; and was ordered for his penance to maintain two
hundred soldiers in the holy war for a year. This miraculous conversion of the
king and restitution of the liberties of the church was looked upon as the
effect of the saint’s prayers and blood. Seven lepers were cleansed, the blind,
the deaf, the dumb, and others sick of all kind of distempers were cured by his
intercession, and some dead restored to life.11 Pope Alexander III. published the
bull of his canonization in 1173. Philip, afterwards surnamed Augustus, son of
Lewis VII. of France, being very sick and despaired of by the physicians, the
king his father spent the days and nights in tears, refusing all comfort. He
was advertised at length three nights in his sleep by St. Thomas, whom he had
known, to make a pilgrimage to his shrine at Canterbury. He set out against the
advice of his nobility, who were apprehensive of dangers: he was met by King
Henry at the entrance of his dominions, and conducted by him to the tomb of the
martyr. After his prayer he bestowed on the church a gold cup, and several
presents on the monks with great privileges. Upon his return into France he
found his son perfectly recovered through the merits of St. Thomas, in 1179.

God was pleased to chastise King
Henry as he had done David. His son the young king rebelled, because his father
refused the cession of any part of his dominions to him during his own life. He
was supported by the greatest part of the English nobility, and by the king of
Scotland, who committed the most unheard-of cruelties in the northern
provinces, which he laid waste. The old king in his abandoned condition made a
pilgrimage to the shrine of St. Thomas, walked barefoot three miles before the town
over the pebbles and stones, so that his feet were all bloody, and at the tomb
his tears and sighs were the only voice of his contrite and humble heart before
God. He would receive a stroke of a discipline from all the bishops, priests,
and canons, and spent there that whole day and the night following without
taking any nourishment, and made great presents to the church. The next
morning, whilst he was hearing mass near the tomb, the king of Scotland, his
most cruel enemy, was taken prisoner by a small number of men. Soon after his
son threw himself at his feet and obtained pardon. He indeed revolted again
several times: but falling sick, by the merits of St. Thomas, deserved to die a
true penitent. He made a public confession of his sins, put on sackcloth, and a
cord about his neck, and would be dragged by it out of bed as the most unworthy
of sinners, and laid on ashes, on which he received the viaticum, and died in
the most perfect sentiments of repentance. As to the four murderers, they
retired to Cnaresburg, a house belonging to one of them, namely Hugh of
Morville, in the west of England, where, shunned by all men, and distracted
with the remorse of their own conscience, they lived alone without so much as a
servant that would attend them. Some time after they travelled into Italy to
receive absolution from the pope. His holiness enjoined them a pilgrimage to
Jerusalem, where three of them shut themselves up in a place called Montenigro,
as in a prison of penance, as the pope had ordered them, and lived and died
true penitents. They were buried before the gate of the church of Jerusalem,
with this epitaph: “Here lie the wretches who martyred blessed Thomas,
archbishop of Canterbury.” The other who had given the first wound, deferred a
little to commence his penance, and stopping at Cosenza in Calabria, there died
of a miserable distemper, in which his flesh rotted from his body and fell to
pieces. He never ceased to implore with sighs and tears the intercession of St.
Thomas, as the bishop of that city, who heard his confession, testified. All
the four murderers died within three years after the martyrdom of the saint.

The body of the martyr was first
buried in the lower part of the church: but shortly after taken up and laid in
a sumptuous shrine in the east end. So great were the offerings thereat, that
the church all round about it abounded with more than princely riches, the
meanest part of which was pure gold, garnished with many precious stones, as
William Lambarte12 and Weever13 assure us. The largest of these was
the royal diamond given by Lewis, king of France. The marble stones before the
place remain to this day very much worn and hollowed by the knees of the
pilgrims who prayed there. The shrine itself is thus described by John Stow.14 “It was built about a man’s height
all of stone: then upwards of plain timber, within which was an iron chest
containing the bones of Thomas Becket, as also the skull with the wound of his
death, and the piece cut out of the skull laid in the same wound. The
timber-work of this shrine on the outside was covered with plates of gold,
damasked and embossed, garnished with brooches, images, angels, chains,
precious stones, and great oriental pearls: the spoils of which shrine in gold
and jewels of an inestimable value, filled two great chests, one of which six
or eight men could do no more than convey out of the church. All which was
taken to the king’s use, and the bones of St. Thomas, by command of Lord
Cromwell, were there burnt to ashes, in September, 1538, of Henry VIII. the
thirtieth.” His hair shirt is shown in a reliquary in the English college at
Douay: a small part in the abbey of Liesse: a bone of his arm in the great
church of St. Waldetrude at Mons:15 his chalice in the great nunnery at
Bourbourg: his mitre, and linen dipped in his blood, at St. Bertin’s at St.
Omer: vestments in many other monasteries, &c. in the Low Countries, &c.16

Zeal for the glory of God is the
first property, or rather the spirit and perfection of his holy love, and ought
to be the peculiar virtue of every Christian, especially of every pastor of the
church. How is God delighted to shower down his heavenly graces on those who
are zealous for his honour! How will he glorify them in heaven, as on this
account he glorified Phinehas even on earth!17What zeal for his Father’s
glory did not Christ exert on earth! How did this holy fire burn in the breasts
of the apostles and of all the saints! but in the exercise of zeal itself how
many snares are to be feared! and how many Christians deceive themselves!
Self-love is subtle in seducing those who do not know themselves. Humour,
pride, avarice, caprice, and passion, frequently are passed for zeal. But the
true conditions of this virtue are, that it be prudent, disinterested, and
intrepid. Prudent in never being precipitant, in using address, in employing
every art to draw sinners from the dangerous paths of vice, and in practising
patience, in instructing the most stupid, and in bearing with the obstinacy and
malice of the impenitent. It is a mistake to place holy zeal in an impetuous
ardour of the soul, which can be no other than the result of passion. Secondly,
it must be disinterested or pure in its motive, free from all mixture of
avarice, pride, vanity, resentment, or any passion. Thirdly, it must be intrepid.
The fear of God makes his servant no longer fear men. John the Baptist feared
not the tyrant who persecuted him: but Herod stood in awe of the humble
preacher.18 The servant of God is not anxious
about his own life: but is solicitous that God be honoured. All that he can
suffer for this end he looks upon as a recompense. Fatigues, contempt, torments
or death he embraces with joy. By his constancy and fidelity he conquers and subdues
the whole world. In afflictions and disgraces his virtues make him magnanimous.
It accompanies him in all places and in every situation. By this he is great
not only in adversity, being through it firm under persecutions and constant in
torments, but also in riches, grandeur, and prosperity, amidst which it
inspires him with humility, moderation, and holy fear, and animates all his
actions and designs with religion and divine charity.

Note 1. Edward Grime is often written
Edmund; for these names were anciently the same, and used promiscuously, as
appears in our MSS. of the middle ages. Yet the etymology differs in the
English-Saxon language. Eadward signifies happy keeper, from ward a keeper. Eadmund is happy peace: for mund is
peace. In law the word Mundbrech is breach of peace. In proper
names Aelmund is all peace: Kinmund, peace to his
kindred: Ethelmund, noble peace: Pharamund, true
peace; though some have construed this true mouth. Edmund, as he
is more frequently called, though Edward in the ancient MSS. of Clair-marais,
long attended St. Thomas, and was his cross-bearer: at the saint’s martyrdom,
by endeavouring to interpose his own body, he received a wound in his arm.
After the archbishop’s death he continued to live at Canterbury, and some years
after wrote his life or passion, which bears the title: Magistri Edvardi Vita
vel Passio S. Thomæ Canct. Archiep. The short prologue begins “Professores
Artium.” The life: “Dilectus igitur,” &c. It ends with a letter of two
cardinals to the archbishop of Sens; these being the last words: “Relaxavit
episcopos de promissione quam ei fecerant, de consuetudinibus observandis et
promisit quod non exigit in futurum.” There follow in the MSS. of the Cistercian
abbey of Clair-marais near St. Omer, four long books of miracles wrought at his
shrine or through his invocation, as inveterate dead palsies cured
instantaneously, &c. [back]

Note 9. Fitz-Stephens relates, (pp. 64, 65,)
that Henry II. sailed from Normandy to England, to assist at the coronation of
his son at London, leaving orders for Roger, the bishop of Worcester, to follow
him; for he was desirous that as great a number of bishops as possible should
be present at the ceremony. The queen, who remained in Normandy, and Richard de
Humet, the justiciary of Normandy, after the king’s departure, sent him a
prohibition when he was at Dieppe ready to embark; for they understood that he
would not assist at the coronation if it was performed by the Archbishop of
York, against the rights of the see of Canterbury. The king returned
immediately to Normandy, and sending for the Bishop of Worcester, called him
traitor, and reproached him with disobeying his orders, and wishing ill to his
family, seeing he refused to attend at his son’s coronation, when there were so
few bishops in England; on which account he declared, that he deprived him of
the revenues of his bishopric. The prelate, relying on his innocence, alleged
modestly the prohibition he had received. The king was but the more angry, and
was for sending for the queen, who was in a neighbouring castle, and for
Richard de Humet. The bishop begged the queen might not be asked; for she would
either deny it to screen herself, or, by confessing the truth, draw his
indignation upon herself. The king, with much contumelious language, told him,
he could never be the son of his own good uncle by his mother, which uncle had
brought him up in his castle, where he and the bishop had learned together the
first rudiments of literature. The bishop being stung at this reproach,
answered his majesty, that his father, the good Count Roger, had inherited both
his honour and estate by his marriage with the bishop’s mother, that he was
uncle by the mother to his majesty, had brought up his majesty with honour, and
had fought for him against King Stephen sixteen years; for all which services
his majesty had curtailed his brother’s estate, depriving him of two hundred
and forty men out of the thousand which this king’s grandfather, King Henry I.,
had given him; and had abandoned his younger brother, whose condition was so
destitute, that barely for bread he was obliged to seek a subsistence amongst
the Hospitallers at Jerusalem. He added, that it was in this manner he was
accustomed to recompense his relations and best friends. Then he said,
“Wherefore do you now threaten to deprive me of the revenues of my bishopric?
May they be yours, if it is not enough for you that you now enjoy an
archbishopric, six bishoprics, and many abbeys, certainly by injustice, and to
the imminent danger of your own soul; and the alms of your ancestors, that were
good kings, and the patrimony and inheritances of Jesus Christ, you convert to
your own secular uses.” One of the courtiers who were present, thinking to please
the king, sharply took up the bishop; and after him another abused him with
opprobrious language. But the king changing the object of his anger, said to
this last nobleman: “Worst of wretches, dost thou think, that, because I say
what I please to my cousin and bishop, it may be allowed thee or any other
person to affront or threaten him? I am scarcely able to contain my hands from
thy eyes. Neither thou nor any other shall be suffered to speak a word against
the bishop.” The anger of this prince easily degenerated into a fit of madness.
In the forty-fourth letter written to St. Thomas, it is mentioned, that the
king being at Caen, was provoked against Richard de Humet, because he said
something in defence of the king of Scots: “Breaking out into contumelious
words, he called him traitor, and hereupon beginning to be kindled with his
wanted fury, threw his cap from his head, ungirt his belt, hurled away his
cloak and garments wherewith he was apparelled, cast off with his own hands a
coverlet of silk from his bed, and sitting as it were upon a dunghill of straw,
began to chew the straws.” And in the next letter it is said: “The boy who
delivered a letter to his majesty, incurred great danger; for the king,
endeavouring to pluck out his eyes with his fingers, proceeded so far as to
come to an effusion of blood.” Peter of Blois had reason to say of him: (ep.
75,) “He is a lamb so long as his mind is pleased, but a lion, or more cruel
than a lion, when he is angry.” And writing to the Archbishop of Panorma, he said:
“His eyes in his wrath seem sparkling with fire, and lightning with fury.—Whom
he hath once hated, he scarcely ever receiveth again into favour.” This St.
Thomas thoroughly understood, and when he opposed him in defence of the church,
sufficiently showed what he expected.
William the Norman, availing himself of the title of Conqueror,
trampled upon all the privileges both of the church and people: but being “a
friend to religion, and a lover of the church and of holy and learned men, he
was their protector, except where his predominant passion of ambition or
interest intervened;” and his dying sentiments give us room to hope, that by
sincere repentance he atoned for all the excesses into which the lust of
dominion, and the dazzling of power and worldly glory might have betrayed him.
But his successor, who was bound by no ties of religion, found no gain sweeter
than the plunder of the church, to raise which, every unjust method was
employed. Such an example was thus set, as furnished a pretence to kings who
had not absolutely lost all sense of religion, to suffer themselves to be
blinded by interest, and, under the specious title of guardians of the revenues
of vacant benefices, to convert them into their own exchequer, and for this
purpose to deprive souls of the comfort, instruction, and relief which they
were entitled to expect from good pastors. From this source numberless
spiritual evils flowed, an effectual remedy to which would have probably made
St. Thomas waive or drop certain other points debated in this controversy: we
are not to reduce it to every incidental or accidental question that was
started, but to have always in view the main point on which the controversy
turned. The eminent sanctity of the martyr, and many circumstances of the
debate are a complete answer to those historians who set this affair in a light
unfavourable to the archbishop, though accidental mistakes could be no
disparagement to a person’s sincere piety and zeal. If he, who best of all men
knew the king, was not to be so easily imposed upon by half promises as those
were who were strangers to him, we are not on this account to condemn him.
In the MS. account of our saint’s miracles it is observed, that the
nation was in the utmost consternation and dread upon the accession of Henry
II. to the throne, lest he should avail himself of the title of a conquest, to
set aside all the rights of the people, and even of particulars, in imitation
of the founder of our Norman line. His maxims and conduct with regard to the
church alarmed the zeal of our primate, whose whole behaviour removes him from
all suspicion of ambitious views. The king’s passionate temper made the evil
most deplorable; and the danger was increased by his capriciousness, which
appeared in his changing his designs in his own private conduct every hour, so
that no one about his person knew what he was to do the next hour, or where he
should be: an unsettledness, which is a sure mark that humour and passion
direct such resolutions. For such was the situation of his court, as Peter of
Blois, who, to his great regret, lived some time in it, tells us: and to the
same, John of Salisbury frequently alludes, in the description he has left us
of a court. Afflictions opened the eyes of this prince and his son: and the
edifying close of their lives, we hope, wiped off the stains which their
passions in their prosperity left on their memory. And is it not reasonable to
presume that both were indebted for this grace, under God, to the prayers of
St. Thomas? As to the saint’s martyrdom, his pure zeal and charity raised the
persecution against him, not any mixed cause, which suffices not to give the
title of martyrdom in the church, though it often enhances its merit before
God. Neither ought a pretence affected by persecutors to make the cause appear
mixed, to deprive the martyr of an honour which it justly increases even before
men, as the fathers observe with regard to some who suffered in the primitive
persecutions; and as it is remarked by Baronius, (Annot. in Mart. hâc die,) Macquer,
(Abrégé Chronologique de l’Hist. Eccles. 16 Siècle, t. 2, p. 489, ed. 2, 1757,)
and ingenuously by Mr. Hearne (Præf. in Camdeni Annal. Elisab.) with regard to
many who suffered here under Queen Elizabeth. [back]

Note 11. On the miracles wrought at the
shrine of St. Thomas, see the acts of his canonization; the letter of John of
Salisbury to William, archbishop of Sens, legate of the apostolic see; the
authors of the life of this holy martyr, and our historians of that age. The
keeper of his shrine, a monk at Canterbury, was commissioned to commit to
writing miracles performed through the saint’s intercession, which came to his
knowledge. An English MS. translation of a Latin history of these miracles,
compiled by a monk who lived in the monastery of Christ-church at the time of
the saint’s martyrdom, is kept in the library of William Constable, Esq. at
Burton Constable, in Holderness, (l. n. 267,) together with a life of St.
Thomas. Certain facts there mentioned show that the king’s officers had then
frequent recourse to the trial of water-ordeal. Two men were impeached upon the
forest act for stealing deer; and being tried by the water-ordeal, one was
cast, and hanged; the other, by invoking St. Thomas’s intercession, escaped.
Another accused of having stolen a whet-stone and pair of gloves, was convicted
by the water-ordeal; and his eyes were dug out, and some of his members cut
off; but were perfectly restored to him by the intercession of the martyr,
which he implored. It is here mentioned, that the martyr’s body was at first
hid by the monks in a vault before the altar of St. John Baptist and St.
Austin, but was soon made known, visited out of devotion, and honoured by the
miraculous cures of several diseased persons. The monks kept the door of the
vault shut with strong bolts and locks, and only admitted certain persons
privately to it: but on Friday in Easter week, on the nones of April, the door
was opened, and all persons were permitted to perform their devotions at the
tomb. After this some of the saint’s enemies and murderers mustered a troop of
armed men to steal the body; to prevent which, the monks hid it a second time
behind the altar of our lady; yet it soon began to be again resorted to. The
feast of the translation of the relics of St. Thomas was kept on the 7th of
July, on which day, Stephen Langton, archbishop of Canterbury, removed them in
1223, with the utmost state and pomp.
A manuscript relation in English of two hundred and sixty-three
miracles wrought by the intercession of St. Thomas of Canterbury, is in the
hands of Antony Wright, Esq. in Essex.
Miracle 263. James, son of Roger, earl of Clare, forty days old, by
extremity of crying, contracted a rupture so desperate, that all the physicians
declared it incurable without an incision, which the parents would not allow,
as too dangerous, considering the great tenderness of his age and constitution.
All methods used for a cure failing, the child died in the second year of his
age. The countess, his mother, took him on her knees, put into his mouth a
little particle of the relics of St. Thomas, which she had brought from
Canterbury, and prayed for two hours that St. Thomas would, by his intercession
with God, restore him to life. Several knights, the Countess of Warwick, and
others were present. Her chaplain, Mr. Lambert, a venerable old man, sharply
rebuked her; but she continued to pray, adding a vow that if he was restored,
he should be offered to God at the shrine of the martyr, and she would make a
pilgrimage barefoot to Canterbury. The infant at length opened his eyes, and
revived. The mother performed her vow, carried him in her arms to Canterbury,
whither she walked barefoot.
The author of this relation was eye-witness to many of the miracles
he records, and the book was abroad in the hands of the public within one
hundred and fifty years after the death of St. Thomas; for the original copy
belonged to Thomas Trilleck, bishop of Rochester, whose bull bears date March
6th, 1363; and who received the temporalities of that see, Dec. 26, 1364, the
thirty-eighth of Edward III. and died about Christmas, in 1372.
The relation must be very ancient, because the author mentions
bishops giving confirmation to children whilst on horseback, and trials of
felons by water-ordeal. St. Thomas, he says, always alighted on such occasions,
but administered the sacrament in the open air: and at several places where he
was known to have alighted for this purpose, crosses were afterwards set up,
and were famous for miracles. [back]